[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11793-S11815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued


                           Amendment No. 2213

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on the motion to waive the 
Congressional Budget Act with respect to Kennedy amendment No. 2213.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is a very modest 
amendment. It effectively adds $200 for students who receive Pell 
grants. These are students who come from families with low incomes. 
Pell grants have been a backbone of our education policy and are 
essential to providing these students an opportunity.
  We initially passed in the budget a $5.4 billion increase in funding 
for higher education. All of that was eliminated. We have an 
opportunity this afternoon to make a small difference for those who 
receive Pell grants.
  This amendment is about education. Education is about opportunity. 
This amendment is about competitiveness because in today's global 
economy we need well-educated individuals.
  This amendment is about national security because education is the 
key to having a strong national security.
  Finally, it is about fairness. Americans understand fairness. They 
believe in education.
  I hope this amendment will succeed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with everything Senator Kennedy 
has said about the importance of increasing Pell grants. But the 
difficulty is, in adding this appropriated fund, in his effort to add 
additional money, there is no offset. We have a budget of $145 billion. 
We have made the allocations as best we can.
  Since I took over the chairmanship of the Appropriations 
subcommittee, in 1995 we have increased the Pell grants on an annual 
basis from $2,340 to $4,050. I would like to increase them more, but 
there simply is not enough money to do so. If the Senator from 
Massachusetts has a suggestion as to some other priority which is of 
lesser importance, I would be glad to listen. This is a carefully 
crafted bill. Much as I would like to increase the Pell grants, there 
simply are not the funds to do so.
  I am constrained to ask my colleagues to support the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What is the issue before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is to waive the Congressional 
Budget Act in relation to the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Further inquiry: An aye vote effectively would be 
related to keeping the pending amendment alive?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their prompt 
arrival in the Chamber to vote. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote. I don't 
think we have had too many under 20 minutes, recently, at least, so we 
are moving right along. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 2222

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.

[[Page S11794]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for himself, and Mr. 
     Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 2222.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To rename certain buildings of the centers within the Centers 
                  for Disease Control and Prevention)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The Headquarters and Emergency Operations 
     Center Building (Building 21) at the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention is hereby renamed as the Arlen Specter 
     Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center.
       (b) The Global Communications Center Building (Building 19) 
     at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hereby 
     renamed as the Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications Center.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to two of our 
most distinguished colleagues, Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom 
Harkin. I wish to recognize both for their many outstanding 
contributions to our country's disease and injury prevention and 
emergency preparedness through their work with the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
  Since 1995, when Senator Specter and Senator Harkin became chair and 
ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations Subcommittee, funding for the CDC has tripled, from a 
little over $2 billion to more than $6 billion. This funding has been 
used by CDC to achieve its mission of promoting health and quality of 
life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.
  In 1999, Senators Specter and Harkin visited the CDC main campus in 
Atlanta, GA. They were surprised to find world-class scientists and 
health care professionals working in substandard, 50-year-old 
buildings. They recognized that beyond the aesthetics, the facilities 
were hindering the ability of the scientists to respond to disease 
outbreaks with the full force of modern technology.
  They set out to rebuild the infrastructure of the CDC to ensure that 
it was capable of meeting its mission. In 1999, the budget for CDC 
buildings and facilities was $17 million, barely enough to make 
critical repairs, such as patching leaky roofs. However, since 2000, 
under the leadership of Senators Specter and Harkin, over $1.3 billion 
has been invested in the infrastructure of the CDC.
  These funds have been used to build laboratories capable of handling 
the most dangerous pathogens, such as ebola, anthrax, and smallpox. The 
foresight of these two Senators was confirmed by the essential role the 
new facilities played in responding to the anthrax attack in 2001, the 
Marburg virus outbreaks, and the potential for an influenza pandemic.
  The latest additions to the CDC campus are now complete and include 
two new buildings dedicated to responding to public health emergencies 
and disseminating information to health professionals. The CDC 
Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center will be the new home to 
the Office of the Director, Coordinating Officer of Terrorism 
Preparedness and Emergency Response, Office of Security and Emergency 
Preparedness, and the Emergency Operations Center. It will provide 
permanent, secure, and consolidated command and control areas for CDC's 
response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and outbreak 
responses. It allows for CDC's executive leadership and other critical 
headquarters functions to relocate to one building to allow for 
increased coordination and communication.
  The Global Communications Center will support outreach and worldwide 
collaborative efforts. The center is a multifunctional, comprehensive 
scientific learning facility encompassing functions key to CDC's 
mission and goals for public health, such as outreach, research, and 
programmatic foundations. The Global Communications Center not only 
provides a physical place to bring the public health community together 
for training, information exchange, and collaboration, but it is also 
the technological link for CDC employees around the globe, from Alaska 
to Zimbabwe.
  It is fitting that these flagship buildings be named for the two 
Senators who have led the Senate in providing funding for public health 
and research. I am pleased to offer this amendment, cosponsored by my 
dear friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, to designate the two new 
CDC buildings as the Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency 
Operations Center and the Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications 
Center.
  Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2222) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 2194

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside, and I further ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 2194 that is pending at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed, for himself, Ms. 
     Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
     Harkin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Obama, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, 
     Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
     Salazar, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Smith, 
     Mr. Kohl, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2194.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for appropriations for Low-Income Home Energy 
                          Assistance Program)

       In title II, in the matter under the heading ``low-income 
     home energy assistance'', in the matter under the heading 
     ``Administration for Children and Families'', after the first 
     sentence insert the following:
       In addition to amounts appropriated under the preceding 
     sentence, for making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), 
     $2,920,000,000, which amount is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2006.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Dodd 
and DeWine as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, last week Senator Collins and I came to the 
floor to offer an amendment on the Transportation-Treasury 
appropriations bill to increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, more commonly known as LIHEAP. We would have 
increased the appropriations to the authorized amount of $5.1 billion. 
With Senator Collins' support, and with the help of 53 other Senators, 
we came forward to make a statement that in this cold winter that is 
approaching, with soaring energy prices, Americans needed help and we 
could do better. Fifty-three Senators, Democrats and Republicans, 
northerners and southerners, east coasters and west coasters supported 
our amendment when it came to a vote. But it failed to pass because of 
a procedural need to acquire 60 votes. We, joined by 30 of our 
colleagues, are here again today to offer our amendment to the Labor-
HHS appropriations bill.
  Our amendment provides $2.92 billion in emergency spending for the 
LIHEAP program. This amount, coupled with the $2.18 billion in the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill, will fully fund LIHEAP at the authorized 
level of $5.1 billion, a level authorized by this Congress and signed 
into law by the President just 3 months ago. At this level, LIHEAP will 
cover the full increase in

[[Page S11795]]

recipients' heating costs so they would not be forced to pay more out 
of their very limited budgets for this winter's heating season. It is 
imperative that this appropriations bill provide additional resources 
to the LIHEAP program so families are safe and warm this winter.
  As we speak, there is a storm raging in the Northeast in New England. 
We expect in some parts of the region to have snow this evening. Winter 
is coming. It is coming with a particular ferocity at this moment. But 
something else is already happening: Rising energy prices, 
extraordinary increases in energy prices, much of it as a result of 
Hurricane Katrina that struck the gulf coast area. As I have said 
before, the first surge was high water that overwhelmed low-income 
people in New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama and other cities 
along the gulf coast. The second surge is high energy prices which are 
about to overwhelm many individuals in the Northeast and the Midwest 
and throughout this country where the temperatures begin to fall as 
they do this time of year. We have to do more to protect these people 
because we know it is coming.
  One of the lessons from Katrina is that we understand that there are 
people who are vulnerable, and they have to be protected before the 
storm hits, not afterwards. This is an opportunity to do that for 
people throughout this country who are vulnerable this winter to rising 
energy prices and falling temperatures.
  I particularly thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their strong 
support of the LIHEAP program. I realize the difficult choices they 
faced this year in determining spending limits for the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill. I appreciate their support for this amendment to 
add emergency spending for LIHEAP.
  On Saturday, the New York Times printed an editorial titled 
``Washington's Cold Shoulder.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
the editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 22, 2005]

                       Washington's Cold Shoulder

       The weather is turning cold, and home heating fuel is 
     increasingly unaffordable. The Energy Department recently 
     reported that households should expect to pay 48 percent more 
     this year for natural gas, on average, and nearly a third 
     more for oil and propane--assuming a ``normal'' winter and no 
     further supply disruptions like Katrina.
       In and of themselves, those increases will be too much for 
     an estimated seven million low-income Americans, including 
     old people, disabled people and families with children. On 
     top of gasoline prices that are already high and wages that 
     are stagnating, the rising cost of heating fuel is bound to 
     be devastating.
       Yet Congress is balking at approving an additional $3 
     billion in federal heating subsidies that would help meet the 
     coming need. (Lawmakers allocated $2 billion to the subsidy 
     program last summer, before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita sent 
     prices soaring.) Earlier this month, and again on Thursday, 
     measures in the Senate to provide the extra funds were 
     defeated, largely by a bloc of Republican lawmakers, though 
     with each vote, a handful of Republicans voted in favor and a 
     few Democrats voted against.
       At the same time, Republican majorities in Congress are 
     unrelenting in their drive to pass $70 billion in new tax 
     cuts this fall, most of them for wealthy investors, and $35 
     billion in spending cuts, most in programs that benefit the 
     poor.
       With Congress's priorities so obviously skewed, the best 
     chance for adequate heating subsidies this winter lies with 
     President Bush. Advocates for the poor are hoping that Mr. 
     Bush will ask for the additional money in a future hurricane-
     related emergency spending request to Congress. But so far, 
     Mr. Bush has not said whether he will ask for more heating 
     aid, and, if so, when or how much.
       This sad lack of urgency is seen elsewhere in the 
     administration as well. Asked at a news conference earlier 
     this month whether the administration would support bolstered 
     subsidies for low-income families and the elderly, Secretary 
     of Energy Samuel Bodman suggested that everyone just wait and 
     see. ``I can't respond to that,'' he said, ``other than by 
     saying we're going to do our very best, first, to see what we 
     can accomplish by the reduction in demand for energy.''
       That's unacceptable. Heating subsidies are not a 
     conservation issue. Vulnerable people need to keep the heat 
     on to keep from getting sick, or worse. Such subsidies help 
     everyone by maintaining public health and safety, ensuring 
     that others don't become ill and spread illness, or resort to 
     hazardous means of heating that can cause fires. Heating aid 
     for the needy is also a matter of common decency, which 
     ordinary Americans are entirely capable of, though not, so 
     far, their elected leaders.

  Mr. REED. The editorial says that our congressional priorities are 
skewed, and I agree. As the editorial points out, Members of Congress 
are continuing an unrelenting drive to pass $70 billion in new cuts 
this fall in taxes, most of them for wealthy investors, and to cut $35 
billion in spending, mostly in programs that benefit the poor. The 
vulnerable people need to keep the heat on to keep from getting sick, 
becoming homeless, or worse.
  Because of our budget rules, we are prevented from getting a straight 
up-or-down majority vote on our amendment to provide assistance to 
seniors, low-income working families, and disabled individuals. This 
amendment will ensure that they will be protected from the ravages of 
the cold this winter: aid that will ensure children will not become ill 
or malnourished, aid that will ensure families do not resort to 
hazardous means of heating that can cause fires. Unfortunately and 
regrettably, every heating season there is a terrible incident where 
some poor person decides their stove can provide them some heat, and 
they leave it on, causing a fire with tragic consequences. I hope that 
will not be the case this year. If we don't provide support for these 
families, they have very little choice in many cases, other than to 
improvised heat, and that often leads to tragedy.
  As the New York Times editorial states: Heating aid for the needy is 
a matter of common decency. Is our memory so short that we have 
forgotten the pledge we made to low-income families after Hurricane 
Katrina to address the economic disparity in our Nation that literally 
leaves many out in the cold or in the dark?
  Rising energy prices could financially wipe out working-class 
families and seniors this winter. Energy costs for the average family 
using heating oil are estimated to hit $1,600 this winter, an increase 
of $380 over last winter's heating season. For families using natural 
gas, prices could hit about $1,400, an increase of $500. For families 
using propane, prices are projected to hit $1,400, an increase of about 
$325. For families living in poverty, energy bills are now over 20 
percent of their income compared to 5 percent of the income of other 
households, more affluent households.
  In America, no one should be forced to choose between heating or 
eating. No senior citizen should be forced to choose between buying 
necessary pharmaceuticals and keeping the heat up. But unfortunately, 
low-income working Americans are facing these decisions each day, and 
they will become more dire and more consequential as the winter 
approaches.
  The heat-or-eat dilemma is a real one for poor families. A study by 
the RAND Corporation found that low-income households reduce food 
expenditures by roughly the same amount as their increase in heating 
expenditures. That is an awful tradeoff, one that I don't think any 
American would like to see take place.
  The Social Security Administration recently announced its cost-of-
living adjustment for 2006 for seniors. The COLA is about a $65-per-
month increase for the average retired couple. But with this winter's 
energy prices, that increase will be wiped out in an instant. So we 
have to do better. Even at a funding level of $5.1 billion, LIHEAP 
would still only serve about one-seventh of the 35 million households 
that are poor enough to qualify for assistance. So we are just talking 
about serving the very neediest in our community. This is a program 
that, frankly, could use many more dollars to serve every qualified 
individual. We are just reaching the neediest among us. If we don't 
pass this appropriations, we won't even reach those individuals.
  I urge all my colleagues to join us to secure $2.9 billion in 
additional LIHEAP funding and pass this amendment. I urge an up-or-down 
vote on the amendment. As a nation, we must step back and evaluate our 
priorities. American families are facing an energy emergency. If we can 
find money for tax cuts, then we can find funds for LIHEAP. Now is not 
the time to sacrifice the health and safety of American families. We 
must prioritize, and the priorities start with providing affordable 
energy to low-income and middle-class Americans as they struggle with 
extraordinary increases in

[[Page S11796]]

prices and the looming cold of this winter.
  I am pleased and proud to be joined in this effort by my colleague 
from Maine, Senator Collins.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
and friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in offering an amendment 
that would increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, by $2.9 billion. I want to begin my 
remarks by thanking the manager of this bill, Senator Specter, for his 
strong commitment to the LIHEAP program. Despite difficult budgetary 
constraints, the chairman has found an additional $200 million in 
LIHEAP funding above the administration's request, bringing the total 
to approximately $2.2 billion. I do recognize and very much appreciate 
that effort.
  Unfortunately, even with this additional funding, we are still far 
short of the amount of funding that is needed for this vital program. 
Just a few months ago, President Bush signed into law the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005. This law, which passed the Senate with an overwhelming 
vote, authorizes $5.1 billion for the LIHEAP program for fiscal year 
2006. The Reed-Collins amendment would increase LIHEAP funding to the 
fully authorized level.
  Our Nation has now been struck by three extremely powerful hurricanes 
in as many months. While these hurricanes have been devastating to the 
people of Florida and the gulf coast, they have also had a major impact 
on the rest of the Nation. Just as the Nation should be building oil 
supplies for the winter heating season, these hurricanes have disrupted 
our already strained supplies and sent the cost of both home heating 
oil and gasoline, as well as natural gas, to painfully high levels.
  While high energy prices pose a challenge for almost all Americans, 
they impose an especially difficult burden on low-income families and 
our elderly citizens who are living on limited incomes. Low-income 
families spend a greater percentage of their incomes on heating their 
homes, and they have fewer options available as energy prices soar. 
High energy prices can even cause families to choose between keeping 
the heat on, putting food on their table, or buying much-needed 
prescription drugs. In our country, the most prosperous country on 
Earth, surely no family should have to make such terrible choices.
  I believe our amendment reflects a realistic appraisal of the need 
for more assistance in this program. Let me briefly describe the 
situation that we are facing in my State of Maine, a State where snow 
is predicted for later today. While the official start of winter is 
still 2 months away, temperatures have already fallen below freezing in 
much of Maine. In Maine, 78 percent of all households use home heating 
oil to heat their homes. Currently, the cost of home heating oil is 
approximately $2.50 per gallon, although I recently paid 20 cents more 
per gallon to fill my tank.
  That price, the $2.50 price, is some 60 cents above last year's 
already high prices. These high prices greatly increase the need for 
assistance and at least 3,000 additional Mainers are expected to apply 
for LIHEAP assistance this year. With more people in need of help, the 
benefit is expected to fall by roughly 10 percent, to about $440 per 
qualifying household.
  Unfortunately, at today's high prices, $440 is only enough to 
purchase approximately 173 gallons of oil. That is far below last 
year's equivalent benefit of 251 gallons and not nearly enough, not 
even close, to what will be needed by these families to get through 
Maine's winter.
  With rising prices and falling benefits, we have a real problem. To 
purchase the same amount of oil as last year, Maine would need an 
additional $10.8 million in LIHEAP funding. With winter fast 
approaching and energy prices soaring, home heating bills are set to 
pound family budgets mercilessly. For low-income families, LIHEAP funds 
can be a factor that prevents them from having to choose between 
turning down the heat to the point where they are at risk for 
hypothermia or putting food on the table, paying their bills or buying 
prescription drugs.
  Surely we can do better to help those who otherwise will truly suffer 
during the winter months.
  I call upon all of our colleagues to join us in this amendment or 
surely it will be too late to help those who are going to be in dire 
straits this winter. Let us act now to provide the funding that is so 
sorely needed.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been around the Senate for a long 
time, and I have been serving West Virginia for a long time. I have 
seen many seasons in my time in this Senate, and I know that with each 
season comes its challenges. There is strength and beauty in West 
Virginia winters, but the impacts of recent hurricanes and other energy 
challenges will test our ability to meet our needs this coming season. 
These colder temperatures mean that West Virginians and Americans in 
many regions of this country will be struggling to heat their homes. I 
know, as winter approaches, many West Virginians will be faced with 
tough choices about whether to use their paychecks to heat their homes, 
to fill their cars with gasoline, or to buy winter clothes for their 
children. I sympathize with those who have to make these tough choices, 
and these hard-working Americans deserve some measure of relief.

  I strongly support the Reed/Collins amendment. We need to fully fund 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. This program is 
critical for those in my State and across the country who will be 
facing a tough winter. Colder winter months, coupled with the 
simultaneous challenges of an increase in poverty, a growing elderly 
population, and ever-increasing home heating costs, will make this 
program crucial. The LIHEAP program fills the gap for the poorest and 
most vulnerable of our citizens, allowing them the sanctuary of a warm 
home, something to which each and every American is entitled. More than 
130,000 households benefit from this program in my State. Households, 
including many in West Virginia, that heat with natural gas are 
expected to pay an average of $350, or 48 percent, more for home 
heating this winter than last. This increase will leave many West 
Virginians even more vulnerable and forced to make tough choices.
  Therefore, I support this amendment, as I have when it has been 
previously offered on other fiscal year 2006 Appropriations bills. I 
cannot stand by and let the throes of winter leave the most vulnerable 
in my State out in the cold, and I urge my colleagues to support it.


                                  IRAQ

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, press reports today indicate that the number 
of American troops killed in Iraq has now reached 2,000--2,000. This is 
another tragic milestone in this costly and unnecessary war in which 
too much blood--too much blood, too much blood--has already been 
spilled. And I offer my deepest sympathies to the brave men and women 
who have given their lives--that is everything. They have given their 
lives. They have given their all, everything, their lives--most of 
these young lives in their 20s or thereabouts--given their lives in 
selfless dedication to service--2,000--2,000 men and women given their 
lives in dedication to our Nation. See the empty chairs. Two thousand, 
2,000 empty chairs at the table, 2,000. How many hearts have been 
broken? How many tears have been spilled? I offer to these families my 
prayers that God, almighty God, may comfort them in their grief over 
the loss of their beloved husbands, wives, sons or daughters, brothers 
or sisters.
  As we mourn the losses that have already occurred in the war in Iraq, 
Americans should be mindful that all indications are that there will be 
many more losses to come--many more losses to come, yes, in the most 
dangerous, the most dangerous country in the world, the most violent 
country in the world. How would you like your sons or grandsons or 
granddaughters to go? And for what? For what? They did not ask to be 
sent to war. They were young. They had life ahead of them. Oh, the 
lofty horizons they had, the great dreams they had--the dreams, the 
dreams, yes, the dreams, of these young men and women--2,000--2,000--
2,000. They did not ask to be sent to war, I say.

[[Page S11797]]

  But each day they carry out their duty. Think of those who are in 
Iraq. No, they must not stand still in one place, no. Keep on the move. 
Look all around you. How much they sleep at night and how much their 
mothers and fathers lie on their pillows to cry out to God to save 
their sons and daughters, to send them home safely. What a terrible 
thing.
  It is only reasonable that the American people and their elected 
representatives, like you--like you, yes, and like me--ask more 
questions, questions, more questions, yes. Why? Oh, why? Why? Why? How 
much longer, how long do we have to suffer? How long do our young 
people have to look forward to this dreadful trap?
  I was alarmed last week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was 
asked at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the 
President's ability to initiate another war. Specifically, Secretary 
Rice was asked whether the President must seek a new congressional 
authorization if he were to attack Syria or Iran. Secretary Rice 
responded:

       I don't want to try and circumscribe Presidential war 
     powers.

  How about that.

       I don't want to try and circumscribe Presidential war 
     powers. And I think you'll understand fully that the 
     President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in 
     the war on Iraq.

  I am astounded, I am flabbergasted, I am astonished by that response. 
The Secretary of State seems to indicate that she believes this 
President or any other President has the power to redefine the war in 
Iraq and the war on terrorism--and that power that appears in the 
Constitution of the United States: Congress shall have power to declare 
war--has the power to redefine the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism 
to include a possible attack on Syria or Iran.
  Think of it. Mr. President, Congress made a grave mistake, Congress 
made a grave mistake--what a blot on the escutcheon of the Senate--when 
it voted to pass the resolution which transferred to the President the 
power to declare war against Iraq. What a shame. What a shame. What a 
mistake. Oh, my, what a mistake. What a mistake. What a shame. And this 
Senate for the most part stood mute--mute, mute, silent, speechless.
  Congress made a grave mistake on October 11, 2002, in passing the 
resolution that transferred to the President, any President, the 
power--how about that, the power--that is not what this Constitution 
says. This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, says that Congress--
that is us, the people's representatives, here and across on the other 
side of the Capitol--Congress shall have power to declare war. But what 
did Congress do? Congress shifted that power to declare war, tucked its 
tail between its legs, so to speak, and walked off the field, threw its 
sword in the sand and walked off the field, relegated itself then, now, 
and forever more, until that law is changed, rendered itself 
speechless. We wash our hands, Congress washed its hands. Congress 
washed its hands and walked away from that field, with its broken sword 
in the sand, transferring to the President the power to declare war 
against Iraq. And for what? For what? Why did we go there? Well, there 
are all kinds of reasons now they bring but then it was because there 
were to be found weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. Rumsfeld said: Oh, we know where they are; they are in the north, 
they are in the south, the east and west. We know where they are.
  Well, where are they, Mr. Secretary? Where are they? Where are they? 
Two thousand men and women, one for every year that has passed since 
Jesus Christ was born--2,000, 2,000. And for what?
  But that resolution was limited to Iraq alone. It had no mention of 
Iran, no mention of Syria. That resolution cannot possibly authorize a 
new war against Syria or Iran. Our troops are so deeply mired in this 
sectarian conflict in Iraq, what point could there possibly be in 
contemplating an attack on Syria or Iran? Why did Secretary Rice 
dismiss the notion that the President must first come to Congress if he 
wishes to broaden this war to new countries--unless our country is 
under the direct threat of an imminent attack. Then a President has the 
inherent constitutional power to move to war.
  The American people seek an end, they seek an end, they want an end 
to this ongoing bloody war in Iraq, not new conflicts in neighboring 
countries.
  For the sake of the Constitution--here it is in my hand--for the sake 
of the Constitution, for the sake of the American people--there they 
are. I see them out there through those electronic lenses. Yes, there 
they are, out into the mountains, the Appalachians, then the Midwest, 
then the Rockies, then the west coast. They are all over there, the 
American people--and for the brave members of the U.S. Armed Forces, 
the President should publicly acknowledge that there will be no 
expansion of the war in Iraq, none, no expansion, without the 
authorization of Congress. That is us. That is us, Members of the House 
and Senate. Not one man, not one body. Two bodies, the House and the 
Senate, the Congress of the United States.

  There must be no more mission creep. There must be no more billions 
committed. There must be no more lives lost without authorization by 
the people's representatives in Congress, including an open debate and 
an up-or-down vote. That is what I pleaded for. That is what some of us 
pleaded for. That is what some of us pleaded for--debate, time, talk, 
wait, wait until after the election; let's hear what the people have to 
say and then come back and talk about it. No, it had to be done in a 
hurry; we have to get it behind us.
  The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Jersey and 
the Senator from Rhode Island and others said: Wait a minute, let's 
talk about it; let's wait until after the election; we don't have to do 
it now; let's wait, wait, wait; let's talk about it. No, we were told, 
get it behind us, get it behind us. I said you will never get it behind 
us. This man down at the White House is not going to let it get behind 
us. He has you right where he wants you.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will be glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for addressing the 
Senate on this very grim day that marks the loss of the 2,000th young 
American in Iraq. I welcome my memory being refreshed by the Senator's 
very eloquent statements about what took place at that time and 
subsequently about his policy differences, which I share so deeply.
  While the Senator said we should wait, does the Senator not think it 
might have been appropriate that we give the inspectors adequate time 
to complete their inspection prior to the time we were going to have 
the troops begin the invasion?
  As members of the Armed Services Committee, we were told that we were 
transferring the information Don Rumsfeld had to the inspectors. Under 
the excellent questioning of the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, 
Secretary Rumsfeld was asked about the information that would be 
transferred to the inspectors, and he gave the assurance to the Armed 
Services Committee that this was a continuing, ongoing process in which 
we were involved. Then we found out subsequently that there was no 
transfer of information. There was no transfer of information because, 
as the Senator has pointed out, those weapons had not been there. But 
that information was never shared with the Members of this body. There 
was never an effort to try to see whether the international inspectors 
could find what the Secretary of Defense swore to, effectively, about 
the weapons of mass destruction--and the Senator used the words north, 
south, east, and west, which are very much the words the Secretary of 
Defense used. He assured the American people he knew where they were.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We understood they were going to notify the inspectors 
and give assurances to the American people. Doesn't the Senator believe 
it would have been appropriate at least if we had waited until that 
kind of process continued and we find out whether weapons of mass 
destruction were there or were not there? That is part of the waiting, 
is it not?
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely, positively.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for reminding us about that period 
in history. I gather from what the Senator is saying, with all the 
mistakes and blunders that have been made--

[[Page S11798]]

  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. --what the Senator is asking for is out of respect for 
the extraordinary heroism of our current men and women in the service, 
that they deserve something better than the cliches and slogans for 
policy.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And that they need to have a real policy that is going 
to reflect how we can bring those brave American service men and women 
home with honor.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And do it in a way of which we can all be proud.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, yes. I thank the distinguished Senator for his very 
appropriate observations. The U.N. inspectors were doing their job. 
They were finding certain weapons, and they were disposing of them. 
With some more time--I believe it was the top inspector, his name was 
Blix--he said: We can do this job; it may take some months. We could 
have done that and saved 2,000 men and women. Oh, what a shame. The 
inspectors were doing their job.
  Let me hurry on. Too many lives have already been lost.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield? I don't want to interrupt his 
comments here, they are so important, but has the Senator, in his 
following of this issue, been able to detect any plan, any strategy 
that has come from the administration from which he believes the 
American people can gain great satisfaction that we are headed in the 
right direction? Does he know of any plan or program, any strategy that 
would result in the opportunity to bring those service men and women 
home with honor?
  Mr. BYRD. There has been none. There is none. There has been none. I 
see only a huge black hole. No plan. No plan. No plan. No vision. We 
are there with no vision, and people perish and they perish.
  Too many lives have already been lost in pursuit of this nefarious 
doctrine of preemption, unconstitutional on its face--on its face. How 
can there be a congressional debate if one man may decide when to hit, 
where to hit? I urge the administration to turn away from that 
dangerous doctrine of preemptive war and adhere to the requirements of 
the Constitution of these United States, to which we all swear an oath 
to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all 
enemies foreign and domestic. Lord, Lord, help us. May God bless these 
men and women who gave their lives, and God bless their families who 
mourn them every day, every night, and there is no end in sight. May 
God help this Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                    Amendment No. 2194, as Modified

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment No. 2194. I am told I do not need consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:

       On page 158, after line 12, insert:
       In addition to amounts appropriated under the preceding 
     sentence, for making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), 
     $2,920,000,000, which amount is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2006.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Byrd 
to amendment No. 2194.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe the amendment which has been 
offered by the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Maine is 
one of necessity. It is regrettable that fuel costs have grown so high, 
occasioned by a great many factors, one of which is what has happened 
with Hurricane Katrina and the elevation of oil, the elevation of 
natural gas prices.
  This issue of low-income home energy assistance, LIHEAP, has been a 
difficult matter for this subcommittee for the 24 years I have been on 
the subcommittee because it poses such a drastic alternative for so 
many people. The comment ``heat or eat'' is a very accurate one. That 
really is the choice for so many, especially the elderly. I have 
supported funding for LIHEAP in the past, and I believe it is 
accurately characterized as an emergency.
  I say that recognizing the very heavy, burdensome obligations the 
Federal Government has and that spending is a very major issue. But 
when it comes down to the exigencies of this moment where we have 
appropriated so much money to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, we 
are talking about brothers and sisters of those victims of people who 
live in Rhode Island or New Hampshire or Maine or Pennsylvania or so 
many States in the Union. So I will be supporting the amendment Senator 
Reed and Senator Collins have offered.
  I have been advised that there will be an alternative amendment put 
forward to have an across-the-board cut. I do not think that is the 
better answer to the issue, but I wanted to put that on the record so 
that if we move ahead with the yeas and nays, we will hold off on the 
vote perhaps to vote on them side by side, if there is not a second-
degree amendment. We will see what we sort out on procedure.
  I thought it important as manager on this side that I make this 
statement which I have. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we are going to pause at 3:40 p.m. 
My friend and colleague from New Jersey has an important statement, but 
he is letting me proceed.
  Winter is rapidly closing in on States across America. Yet even after 
Hurricane Katrina shocked the Nation about the desperate plight of the 
poor, the administration and the Republican Congress continue to ignore 
our neediest citizens.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, home heating 
bills will soar this winter. Households heating primarily with natural 
gas will pay an average of $350 more this winter for heat--an increase 
of an incredible 48 percent over last year. Those relying primarily on 
oil for heat will pay $378 more--an increase of 32 percent.
  The people most in need of help on this issue are the 37 million 
Americans living in poverty today--including 13 million children. 
According to a recent report by Economic Opportunity Studies, families 
in poverty will owe an average of 25 percent of their entire income for 
their energy bills this winter.
  The Federal poverty guideline is $16,090 for a family of three. That 
means that $4,022 will be spent on home energy bills, leaving only 
12,000 or $1,000 a month for expenses the entire year.
  A family whose rent is $800 a month would have only $200 left. For a 
household of three, that's only $63 per person per month for food, 
clothing, and health care.
  Mr. President, 46 million Americans lack health insurance in this 
country. If such families have a health emergency and no health 
insurance, their annual income could be further strapped.
  What if the family owns a car so they can get to and from work? More 
money will be needed to pay the high cost of gasoline and to make 
monthly car and insurance payments.
  Since many families live below the Federal poverty line, they will 
have even less money left for other needs after they pay to heat their 
homes.
  A recent study by researchers from Stanford University, the 
University of Chicago, the RAND Corporation, and UCLA found that when 
poor families' heating bills go up during cold winter months, they 
reduce their spending on food.
  LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, was created 
two decades ago to prevent low-income families from being forced to 
make these impossible tradeoffs. Yet Federal funding for LIHEAP has 
been stagnant for over a decade, even as the need for assistance has 
risen sharply. As a result, the purchasing power of LIHEAP assistance, 
adjusted for inflation, is now only a little over half of what it was 
in 1982.
  Thirty-three million households are eligible for LIHEAP assistance. 
These households will spend nearly $55 billion in energy costs. Yet the 
LIHEAP program is funded at only $2 billion.
  According to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, 
LIHEAP assistance reached 5 million families this year--the highest 
level in

[[Page S11799]]

ten years, but only 15 percent of the eligible population.
  In Massachusetts, LIHEAP serves 134,000 families, which is only 15 
percent of the 867,000 families eligible for assistance.
  Earlier this month, I visited the Curtis Hall Community Center in 
Boston, MA, with Mayor Menino. I heard first hand about the extreme 
need for home energy assistance among senior citizens.
  Last winter, Eileen Duggan, a widow from Jamaica Plain in Boston, 
kept her oven on high and wore several layers of clothing because her 
time-worn furnace was inadequate to provide enough heat. She started 
buying less food so that she could use her small monthly budget to pay 
her heating bill. Despite her best efforts, she still couldn't pay that 
bill, and last April, with the New England winter chill still in the 
air, she asked the utility company to stop sending her oil. ``I told 
the oil man: `Don't give me anymore. I can't afford it,' '' she said.
  Other low-income families have also been sharing their stories. One 
example involves a single mother who lives in Haverhill, MA, with her 
18-year-old son who is handicapped, her 19-year-old daughter, and her 
daughter's child who has a medical condition. Both mother and daughter 
work as school bus monitors, and they have little or no income over the 
summer. Their rent is $950 a month. Their last gas bill was $1,729. 
Because they couldn't pay the bill, their gas was shut off last winter. 
Even if they qualify for $600 in LIHEAP assistance, the gas company may 
still refuse to reconnect their service, unless the family comes up 
with another $400 to $800 towards their debt.
  Millions of low-income Americans set their thermostats at just 60 
degrees or even lower--if their heat is still on--while Congress, the 
administration, and the vast majority of us rest content in warm homes. 
Yet the Bush administration and the Republican Congress do nothing year 
after year.
  Time and time again I have stood on the Senate floor urging Congress 
to open its eyes to the needs of the poor.
  It is shameful that after the President and the Republican Congress 
froze LIHEAP funds through the continuing resolution, they continue to 
tune out the pleas of low-income families who need home heating 
assistance.
  Last week, the Republican leadership decided to use a procedural 
maneuver once again to block emergency funding for LIHEAP. Almost every 
Democratic Senator supported this additional relief, but Republican 
Senators overwhelmingly opposed it, and it was defeated.
  There is no excuse for the Republican majority to look the other 
way--but they do. They continue to ignore families who lie awake at 
night worrying how to make ends meet. They refuse to acknowledge the 
parents who worry, day after day, week after week, month after month, 
how to feed their children and keep the heat on, or the elderly who 
turn down their thermostats, put on extra sweaters, or even turn off 
the heat in an attempt to save money.
  It is time to tell low-income families across the country that we 
hear them, that we care about them, and that we don't intend to leave 
them shivering in the cold again this winter. That is why I strongly 
support the Reed-Collins amendment to add $2.9 billion to the LIHEAP 
program. We need to increase LIHEAP funding now to avoid real harm to 
real people this winter, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I urge our colleagues to listen to our colleagues not only from New 
England, from the Northeast, but other parts of the country in urging 
favorable consideration of this amendment. I join them in saying I have 
seen the faces of too many senior citizens, too many elderly people who 
are on fixed incomes. I have seen their fear about what is going to 
happen in their homes and the hard, difficult choices they are going to 
have to make this winter unless we provide this assistance. This 
assistance is desperately needed for our region of the country. It is 
Katrina in a very real way. Like Katrina, it is an emergency in terms 
of heating homes. I hope we can get favorable consideration of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a grim moment for America: 
2,000 of our young courageous people have perished in Iraq--2,000. From 
the years 1961 to 1965--those are the years in Vietnam--we got over 
2,000 death notices sent to homes across the country. There is a lot of 
pain across the country, yes, for those who lost loved ones, but across 
this Nation of ours people are wondering what is it, when do we get to 
see our people coming back home, because it certainly does not have the 
appearance of a matter resolved.
  I have often thought that some memorial should be present in this 
body as these casualty numbers are reported. But as we were denied the 
opportunity to have some reminders of this catastrophe displayed in the 
Rotunda or a busier place, I decided to put a memorial to those lost in 
Iraq at the front door to my office. I have been overwhelmed by the 
interest shown by passers-by.

  We have their pictures up there and their names and the communities 
they come from. There are more numbers coming. We update the list 
regularly, the pictures regularly. Every casualty is a life cut short, 
families torn apart. Outside my office we have this memorial to the 
fallen heroes. You look at those faces and see how young are the people 
who died.
  When I started the Senate memorial I hoped major combat would soon be 
over and our casualties would be minimal or eliminated, but major 
combat has dragged on and the memorial display unfortunately has grown 
and grown. It has gotten to the point where the memorial takes up most 
of the space outside my office. I encourage my colleagues to visit 
these memorials. There is one in the Longworth House Office Building in 
front of the office of Representatives Rahm Emanuel and Walter Jones. I 
encourage my colleagues to visit these memorials and pay tribute to 
these troops.
  As we reach this grim milestone today, it is critical that we examine 
the situation we are facing in Iraq. The President made a speech today. 
We heard it on TV. He basically said let's keep on doing what we are 
doing. We heard the usual rhetoric about spreading freedom.
  I do not think we need any more slogans. I remember the President's 
slogan on the aircraft carrier when he said, ``Mission accomplished.'' 
Mission accomplished? The President declared that major combat 
operations were over. This was in May 2003. Since then we have lost 
1,855 of our people.
  As the debacle on the aircraft carrier proved, slogans are only as 
good as the banners they are written on. But we don't need more 
slogans. We need a plan. We need a plan that will provide relief to our 
troops so they are not shouldering all of the burdens in Iraq. The 
President and his team ignored the wise advice of the State Department 
and alienated our usual allies before the war, and did it with 
incredible arrogance and ineptitude.
  Last year, President Bush scolded my colleague Senator Kerry, while 
debating this issue, alleging that Senator Kerry forgot--I put this in 
quotes--``forgot Poland.'' But even Poland is pulling out of Iraq now. 
With the exception of British troops in Basra, we are essentially going 
it alone across the rest of Iraq. As our troops go it alone, they have 
to live with President Bush's taunt to our enemies when he said: 
``Bring `em on. Bring `em on.''
  Mr. President, have they sufficiently brought them on? That was said 
in July of 2003.
  What the troops on the ground need is less talk and more of a plan 
that defines our specific goals. They want to know exactly how many 
Iraqi troops need to be trained before our soldiers can begin to come 
home. We hear stories about these trained battalions, trained units 
that are made up of Iraqi soldiers. But when you get the other side, 
people who have knowledge from the front, they tell us there are far 
fewer Iraqis trained than are presented to us from the administration.
  What we hear from President Bush over and over again is that we need 
to complete the mission. But we are not told what the mission is.
  Today, I hope every American will pause and reflect on the price that 
has been paid by our very brave service people. Their courage is above 
question--but the administration's policy in Iraq is not. The American 
people

[[Page S11800]]

have a right and a duty to demand answers from our Government. Our 
troops deserve nothing less. Every flag-draped coffin represents a 
family who will never again share a moment with their spouse, with 
their child, sibling, friend.
  It was very telling, early on in this conflict, when the 
administration banned the photography of flag-draped coffins coming 
back to our shores from Iraq. Imagine banning that demonstration of 
honor and tribute--a flag-draped coffin, based upon the fact that it 
might disturb the privacy of the family while they greet the coffin. 
Families don't come to Dover, DE, where the coffins are carried off the 
airplanes. There is a mortuary where remains are often identified and 
moments of privacy provided for the families. But they banned these 
tributes to heroes who served our country. The administration argued 
about the privacy matter. It is a red herring. Of course the funerals 
are private. But at issue was the return of these caskets to Dover Air 
Force Base.
  Why do I talk about it? Because it is an attempt to hide the real 
pain and sacrifice that is being made in this war in Iraq. They do not 
want the American people to see flag-draped coffin after flag-draped 
coffin because it reminds us about what is taking place.
  Presidents Reagan and Clinton publicly met flag-draped coffins on the 
tarmac at Dover. But under this President we cannot even take pictures 
of them.
  We should honor, not hide, flag-draped coffins. They are a symbol of 
the respect, honor, and dignity our fallen heroes deserve. Today we 
honor the 2,000 heroes who sacrificed their lives for our country.
  I urge the President to pay tribute to their memory by offering this 
country a concise, realistic plan that will allow us finally to 
transfer power to Iraqis and bring our troops home.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I know the chairman is eager to make 
further progress on the underlying bill, and therefore we will be 
brief.
  A number of Senators have come to the floor over the course of today 
to express their thoughts or feelings or emotions or sympathies for the 
families of the over 2,000 military dead in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  At this point, I ask the Senate now proceed to a moment of silence in 
honor of our fallen soldiers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to a moment of 
silence in honor of our fallen soldiers.
  (Moment of silence.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today U.S. military deaths in Operation 
Iraqi Freedom surpassed 2,000. These brave men and women in uniform 
sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom and for the security of 
their fellow Americans. We owe them a deep debt of gratitude for their 
courage, for their valor, for their strength, for their commitment to 
our country. They heard the call of duty and they took the fight to the 
enemy so that the enemy would not strike us here at home. These brave 
men and women join a pantheon of heroes who have fought and died over 
the years for our country.
  Because of their determination, Saddam Hussein now faces a trial for 
his life; because of their resolve, the Iraqi people are exercising 
their right to self-rule. And today, because of their bravery, today 
Iraq has a new constitution, a historic milestone on the march toward 
freedom and the fight against terror.
  Our hearts do go out to all the families who have lost loved ones on 
the battlefield as well as the thousands of men and women who have been 
injured. Their valor, their courage are a shining example to all. We 
owe them our deepest respect. We offer our continued support and our 
continued prayers. We pledge to stand firm in the war on terror. We 
will accomplish the mission to secure a free and prosperous Iraq and, 
in turn, secure the freedom and safety of America.
  We will persevere and we will win--for our heroes in uniform; for the 
United States of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a solemn occasion, to have the 
Senate stand in silence in respect for the sacrifices made by the 
fighting men and women of this country. Our thoughts go out, not only 
to the lives of these individuals but to their families. This is only a 
small token of what we can do to recognize the sacrifices they have 
made, leaving behind their sons and daughters, the husbands and wives 
and friends. We all have been touched by the deaths of these 2,000 in 
one way or the other.
  It is my prayer that the sacrifices made will prove to have been 
warranted.
  I am grateful to my colleagues for being here today on both sides of 
the aisle, and I am grateful to Senator Frist who has joined in this 
moment of silence. It is something that I will remember, and I hope we 
all do.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as of today, 2,000 American soldiers have 
been killed in combat in Iraq.
  Since last January's election in Iraq, we have lost 565 American 
soldiers; 74 of those soldiers have been killed in October--an average 
of three a day. An additional 15,220 have been wounded, and more than 
7,000 of whom were unable to return to combat.
  The youngest of America's fallen soldiers was just 18. The oldest was 
59. Nearly three quarters had not even celebrated their 30th birthday. 
They came from every State in the Nation. This includes 38 soldiers 
from my own State of Massachusetts.
  They are the best of America, and we are proud of each one. Although 
I disagree with the President about Iraq, I honor the service and 
sacrifice and dedication of each of these brave men and women.
  Our Armed Forces are serving ably in Iraq under enormously difficult 
circumstances and the policy of our Government must be worthy of their 
sacrifice. Unfortunately, it is not, and the American people know it.
  Our soldiers in Iraq need more than happy talk about progress from 
the President. They need more than a public relations campaign.
  They need an effective plan to end the violence, and stabilize Iraq, 
so they can come home with dignity and honor.
  Reality is hard medicine to swallow. Facts are stubborn. As the 
Valerie Plame case makes increasingly clear, the administration stopped 
at nothing to cover up its misguided and dishonest decision to go to 
war, and our servicemen and women, their families, and friends are 
paying an unacceptable price. They deserve better--much better from 
their President and so does the Nation.
  It was wrong for the President to rush to war for such a deeply 
questionable cause. President Bush once said that the war in Iraq was a 
catastrophic success. He's half right in one sense. The war has been a 
catastrophe--for our soldiers and their families, for the war on 
terrorism, and for America's standing in the world. It has made the 
United States more hated in the world than at any other time in our 
history.
  Beyond the cost in human lives and to our national security, there 
has been an enormous financial cost.
  American taxpayers are spending $195 million each day in Iraq.
  For the cost of fighting the war in Iraq for one day, we could make 
significant improvements in homeland security.
  We could provide 4 million American households with emergency 
readiness kits. We could close the crisis communications technology gap 
for 41 small cities, 36 mid-sized cities, or 6 large cities, so that 
Federal, State and local first responders can talk to one another 
during an emergency.
  We could purchase 780 fire trucks for improving local emergency 
response capabilities, and we could employ 5,000 fire fighters, 4,000 
police patrol officers, or 7,000 paramedics and emergency medical 
technicians for one year each.
  For the cost of fighting the war in Iraq one day, we could double the 
Federal budget for nuclear reactor safety and security inspections to 
ensure that these potential terrorist targets are adequately protected.
  We could pay for 1,100 additional border patrol agents to better 
guard our borders against potential terrorists.

[[Page S11801]]

  We could provide 9,700 port container inspection units to detect 
hazardous materials being trafficked into the country.
  Obviously, the $195 million a day we spend in Iraq could be better 
spent on the all-important areas of jobs, education, and health care, 
which the Senate is debating today. Instead of spending those funds in 
Iraq, we could spend them on better teachers, better financial aid for 
college students, better health care for families, and countless other 
priorities whose budgets are being cut back because of Iraq. I ask 
unanimous consent that a document I've prepared outlining the various 
ways $195 million dollars a day could be spent on pressing priorities 
at home be printed in the Record.
  Instead of covering up mistakes in Iraq, it is time for the President 
to admit them, to adopt an effective strategy to end this war and begin 
to bring our troops home, and to stop ignoring the very real priorities 
facing the Nation and the many many challenges facing us at home and 
abroad.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 The Real Cost of the Iraq War to American Taxpayers--$195 Million per 
                                  Day

       For the cost of fighting the war in Iraq for one day, we 
     could . . .


                           Homeland Security

       One day in Iraq could provide 3.97 million households with 
     an emergency readiness kit.
       One day in Iraq could close the financing gap for 
     interoperable communications in 41 small cities, 36 mid-sized 
     cities, or 6 large cities so that Federal, State and local 
     first responders can talk to one another during an emergency.
       One day in Iraq could purchase 780 fire trucks for 
     improving local emergency response capabilities.
       One day in Iraq could employ 4,919 fire fighters, 4,222 
     police patrol officers, or 7,052 paramedics and emergency 
     medical technicians for one year each.
       One day in Iraq could double the Federal budget for nuclear 
     reactor safety and security inspections to ensure that these 
     potential terrorist targets are adequately protected.
       One day in Iraq could pay for 1,101 additional border 
     patrol agents to better guard our borders against potential 
     terrorists.
       One day in Iraq could provide 9,750 port container 
     inspection units to detect hazardous materials being 
     trafficked into the country.
       One day in Iraq could provide 1,332 explosive trace 
     detection portals for airport screening of passengers, as 
     recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
       One day in Iraq could provide 6,290 local law enforcement 
     agencies with a bomb-detecting robot.
       One day in Iraq could provide 4,875 narcotics vapor and 
     particle detectors.


                               education

       One day in Iraq could cover the full cost of attendance for 
     one year at a public college for more than 17,100 students.
       One day in Iraq could provide more than 79,000 needy 
     college students with a Pell grant.
       One day in Iraq could enroll 27,000 more children in Head 
     Start.
       One day in Iraq could employ 4,269 elementary school 
     teachers or 4,027 secondary school teachers for one year.


                              HEALTH CARE

       One day in Iraq could provide health insurance coverage to 
     344,500 working Americans to give them a break from the 
     rising cost of coverage.
       One day in Iraq could provide health insurance coverage for 
     one year to 380,900 uninsured children in America.
       One day in Iraq could employ 3,597 additional registered 
     nurses for one year.
       One day in Iraq could immunize every person over 65 in the 
     U.S. against influenza 4.6 times over.
       One day in Iraq could immunize every baby born in the U.S. 
     last year against measles, mumps, and rubella 14.2 times.


                                 LABOR

       One day in Iraq could provide unemployment benefits for 
     almost 722,000 unemployed Americans for one week.
       One day in Iraq could fund Social Security retirement 
     benefits for one day for over 6.75 million Americans.
       One day in Iraq could provide comprehensive safety and 
     health training to 121,875 workers.
       One day in Iraq could pay for an increase of $3.34 per hour 
     in the wages of every minimum wage worker in the country.
       One day in Iraq could provide paid sick leave to half a 
     million workers for an entire year.


                              BASIC NEEDS

       One day in Iraq could buy 71.55 million gallons of unleaded 
     regular gasoline.
       One day in Iraq could pay for one year's gasoline 
     consumption for 97,500 Americans, even at today's elevated 
     prices.
       One day in Iraq could buy 63.1 million gallons of fortified 
     whole milk.
       One day in Iraq could buy 166.6 million cartons of large 
     Grade A Eggs sold by the dozen.


                             INTERNATIONAL

       One day in Iraq is equivalent to half of the Gross Domestic 
     Product (GDP) of the country of East Timor.
       One day in Iraq could feed all of the starving children in 
     the world today almost four and a half times over.
       One day in Iraq could vaccinate three-quarters of the 
     children in Africa for measles and give millions a lifetime 
     protection from the disease.
       One day in Iraq could build 5,571 AIDS clinics in Africa.
       One day in Iraq could provide 650,000 women in Africa 
     living with HIV/AIDS antiretroviral treatment for one year to 
     extend their lives and improve the lives of their children.
       One day in Iraq could provide one third of the aid needed 
     for earthquake relief for the four million people affected in 
     South Asia.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today is a very somber day. The U.S. 
military death toll reached 2,000 in Iraq, a figure that I--and every 
American--hoped we would never reach. Our hearts go out to the families 
and friends of those who have lost loved ones.
  I pray for these young Americans, may they rest in peace; and I pray 
for their families, may they heal.
  Let us honor their lives and their memory.
  And let us honor the lives of those who continue to serve by 
developing a credible plan for Iraq. It is time for this administration 
to level with the American people and provide a strategy for success.
  As the current investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame 
reminds us, this administration took us to war on false intelligence, 
misstatements, and exaggerations.
  This administration told the American people that we had no other 
option but to go to war because the regime of Saddam Hussein posed a 
threat to the security of the United States. However, no weapons of 
mass destruction have been found, and there was no serious link between 
Iraq and al-Qaida.
  The administration also provided rosy scenarios and false 
expectations about how the United States would be greeted as liberators 
in Iraq and how the war would be brief. In fact, Secretary of Defense 
Donald Rumsfeld actually said in February 2003 that the war ``could 
last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.''
  Yet here we are, 2\1/2\ years later, lamenting the death of the 
2,000th soldier in Iraq. Of those 2,000 soldiers, 464 of these soldiers 
were either from California or based in California.
  Even as attacks on American soldiers continue, the administration 
refuses to level with the American people. In May 2005, Vice President 
Cheney proclaimed that: ``I think the level of activity that we see 
today in Iraq from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline. 
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.''
  Since that day--since Vice President Cheney told us that violence was 
coming to an end in Iraq--more than 300 Americans have lost their 
lives. And the violence continues to escalate.
  Today we do not just lament the strategic disaster in Iraq, the loss 
of U.S. credibility around the world, and the overwhelming costs to the 
American taxpayer. Above all, we mourn the tragic deaths of 2,000 young 
Americans.
  These men and women voluntarily put their lives on the line to defend 
us when they put on the uniform of the United States Armed Forces. They 
put their trust in the Government that we would only send them to war 
if there was no other recourse.
  In rushing to war, in twisting and revising the case for war, and in 
failing to plan for the aftermath of the war, this administration broke 
the trust with these young men and women at a catastrophic cost.
  These 2,000 young men and women have sons and daughters, husbands and 
wives, mothers and fathers, friends and extended family, all of whose 
lives have been forever changed by the consequences of this reckless 
war.
  Today, let us remember these 2,000 brave Americans. Let us honor 
their lives and their memory by bringing this war to an end.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have reached a milestone in Iraq. Two 
thousand U.S. servicemembers have been killed, including 42 
Marylanders. We must not talk about this in terms of just numbers and 
statistics. Each individual has left behind a legacy, a unique life 
story.
  Today, I want to pause to remember five young men from Maryland who

[[Page S11802]]

died in Iraq in the last 10 days: Army SGT Brian R. Conner, Army SPC 
Samuel M. Boswell, Army SPC Bernard L. Ceo, Marine LCpl Norman W. 
Anderson, III, and Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick. Our condolences go 
out to their families, as well as our gratitude and our appreciation 
for these brave young men. To honor those who have died, we must 
remember the way they lived. Let me tell you about them:
  SGT Brian R. Conner of Gwynn Oak, MD was just 36 years old. He was a 
member of the Maryland National Guard's 243rd Engineer Company, in 
Baltimore. Sergeant Conner was one of three Army National Guardsmen 
killed October 14 in an accident northwest of Baghdad. A tractor 
trailer struck their humvee, setting it on fire and detonating 
ammunition aboard. Sergeant Conner was a lieutenant in Baltimore Fire 
Department, having joined in 1993. He had served in the Maryland 
National Guard since June 1989. Sergeant Conner leaves behind three 
daughters, ages 10, 15, and 21, and his beloved 3-year-old grandson. He 
is survived by his mother Hortense Connor, his brother Paul Edwards, 
and sister Cherice Conner Davis. He is also mourned by his brothers and 
sisters in the Baltimore Fire Department. One family friend said of 
Sergeant Conner: ``Brian was not only a great man who accomplished many 
of his dreams--he was someone loved and cared for. His values will live 
on.'' May God bless Brian Conner.
  SPC Samuel M. Boswell of Elkridge, MD, was 20 years old. He was also 
in the Army National Guard, killed in the same accident that took 
Sergeant Conner's life. Specialist Boswell joined the National Guard in 
June 2003, right after graduating from the technology magnet program at 
River Hill High School in Clarksville. He is mourned by his father, 
Anthony L. Boswell, and by his seven brothers and sisters. Describing 
his youngest brother, Michael Boswell said, ``Sam was probably the 
happiest person you'll ever meet. He was always walking around with a 
smile on his face. . . . He always wanted to do things that would help 
other people whether he knew them or not.'' May God bless Sam Boswell.
  SPC Bernard L. Ceo of Baltimore was 23 years old. He was the third 
member of Maryland's Army National Guard killed on October 14. 
Specialist Ceo enlisted in the Army in December 2001, joining the 
military to help pay for college. He dreamed of being a teacher, and 
when he wasn't serving with the Guard, he worked with students with 
special needs at Kennedy Krieger High School Career and Technology 
Center. Specialist Ceo was carrying on a proud family tradition of 
military service: his father and several uncles served in Vietnam. He 
leaves behind his parents Rosemarie and Fred Ceo, fiancee Dajae 
Overton, and her two young children, whom he was raising as his own. 
Specialist Ceo's coworker said, ``He was a thoughtful, introspective 
young guy. He would have been an excellent teacher.'' May God bless 
Bernie Ceo.
  Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson, III, from Parkton, MD, was 21 years 
old. He served with the U.S. Marines' 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine 
Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, based at Camp Lejeune, NC. Lance 
Corporal Anderson was killed by a suicide car bomb on October 19 in 
Karabilah, near the Syrian border. He was a 2002 graduate of Hereford 
High School, where he was a running back on the football team. He 
joined the Marines in December 2003, and had already served one tour in 
Afghanistan. He is survived by his wife Victoria Anderson, his parents, 
Robyn and Norman, and his sister Brooke. The last time he was home he 
told his mother that, if he was killed in Iraq, she should know that he 
died doing what he wanted to do. May God bless Norman Anderson.
  Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick, from Randallstown, MD, was 21 years 
old. He was an Army reservist, assigned to 983rd Engineer Battalion, in 
Monclova, OH, where he served as a mechanic who worked on power 
generators. Specialist Frederick was killed outside Tikrit when a 
roadside bomb detonated near the vehicle he was driving. He was a 2004 
graduate of Randallstown High School. Specialist Frederick leaves 
behind his parents, Michelle Murphy and Peter Ramsahai, his stepfather 
Kenmore Murphy, and two sisters and one brother. May God bless our 
Kendell.
  Mr. President, similar stories are being told in every community, 
across the Nation. Stories about volunteers who left behind friends and 
family--in the case of guardsmen and reservists, they also left behind 
jobs--to protect our country and help bring freedom to people of Iraq. 
We honor their service and sacrifice, not just with words, but with 
deeds.
  First, we must support our troops, by ensuring they have the 
equipment they need to stay safe and accomplish their mission. Second, 
we need a workable plan to drawdown our troops. Today, there are 
159,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Our strategy for Iraq must be worthy of 
sacrifices they have made. We need to involve the international 
community more, getting help to seal Iraq's borders and keep out 
foreign fighters and terrorists. We used to be at war with Iraq, now we 
are at war in Iraq with insurgents.
  We must also continue to support Iraqi political process. The 
constitution has been approved by more than 78 percent in an election 
that included 63 percent of Iraq's registered voters. Iraq can now move 
forward with parliamentary elections. We should continue to support 
their progress toward democracy. We need better progress rebuilding 
Iraq's military. Iraqis need to fight for Iraq. Our training program 
has been slow to start. We seem to be making progress, but not fast 
enough. We should let our allies help us in this effort. Finally, let's 
get that Iraqi oil going, so they can start to pay their own bills.
  We need to see faster progress on all these things. When these things 
happen, we can begin to withdraw our troops in stages and bring them 
home. Our military men and women have sacrificed in Iraq. They honored 
our country by volunteering to serve. We must honor them with an 
effective plan to finish their work, and bring our troops home.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Mikulski of Maryland be recognized for 10 minutes to speak and that I 
be allowed to follow her to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today we reach a milestone in Iraq.
  Two thousand U.S. service members were killed, including four 
Marylanders.
  A few weeks from now we will be celebrating Thanksgiving. For 2,000 
families, there will be forever and a day an empty chair.
  The 2,000 members of our armed services who died, we cannot think 
about them in numbers and statistics. We in Maryland have lost 42 
soldiers, and most recently we have lost 5 in just this last week 
alone. Each individual left behind a legacy, a unique story.
  Today, as I come to the Senate floor, I wanted to remember the five 
young men who died in the last 10 days, tell you their names, and tell 
you a little bit about them. Army SGT Brian R. Conner, Army SPC Samuel 
M. Boswell, Army SPC Bernard L. Ceo, Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson, 
III, Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick.
  Our condolences go out to their families, as well as our gratitude 
and our appreciation for those who have died. To honor those who have 
died, we must remember the way they lived.
  Let me just tell you about them. SGT Brian Connor was only 36, a 
member of the Maryland National Guard's 243rd Engineer Company. He was 
one of three Army National Guardsmen killed on October 14 northwest of 
Baghdad. Their humvee carrying munitions was set on fire and detonated. 
The ammunition exploded and all three died. Sergeant Conner, Specialist 
Boswell, and Specialist Ceo.
  Sergeant Conner was a lieutenant in the Baltimore Fire Department. He 
joined in 1993. But he was a real star. He rose quickly through the 
ranks to become a lieutenant. The firehouse put his hat and his coat 
aside as a perpetual remembrance. He leaves behind three daughters, one 
10, one 15, the other 21, and a grandson he loved so much.
  A family friend said about Sergeant Conner:

       Brian was not only a great man who accomplished many of the 
     dreams, he was someone who loved and cared for people. His 
     values will live on.


[[Page S11803]]


  God bless Brian Conner.
  Then there is SPC Samuel Boswell from Elkridge, MD, another guy from 
the Army National Guard, killed in that same accident. He joined the 
Guard in 2003. He had just gotten out one of our technology magnet 
schools called River Hill High School in Clarksville. He was one of 
eight brothers and sisters. He joined the military because he wanted to 
have a future. He wanted a long career, and he wanted to follow the 
American dream while protecting the American homeland. Here is what 
Michael Boswell said about his brother:

       Sam was probably the happiest person you'll ever meet. He 
     was always walking around with a smile on his face. He always 
     wanted to do things that would help other people whether he 
     knew them or not.

  God bless you, Samuel Boswell.
  Then there was Specialist Bernard L. Ceo, from Baltimore. He was just 
23. He enlisted in the Army in December 2001 to help earn money for 
college. Specialist Ceo dreamed of being a teacher, and when he wasn't 
on duty as Guardsman, he worked with students with special needs at the 
Kennedy Krieger High School Career and Technology Center. He was 
carrying on a proud family tradition of military service--his father 
and several uncles had served in Vietnam. Specialist Ceo leaves behind 
his parents, Rosemarie and Fred, his fiancee Dajae Overton, and her two 
children, whom he was raising as his own. God bless you, Bernie Ceo.
  Then there was Norman Anderson, III from Parkton, MD. He was a marine 
based in Camp Lejeune. He was killed on October 19. A suicide bomber 
killed him. He had just graduated in 2002 from Hereford High School, 
where he was a running back on the football team. Under the Friday 
Night Lights this week, they took his helmet and his sweatshirt and put 
them aside. The team gave him a salute. They really knew that Norman 
Anderson gave one for the Gipper and one for the United States of 
America. He joined the Marines in December 2003. He already served one 
tour in Afghanistan. He came back home and was recently married to a 
wonderful woman named Victoria. But he went back into the field one 
more time because he felt it was his duty. The last time he was home, 
he told his mother if he died she should know that he died doing what 
he wanted to do.
  God bless Norman Anderson, III.
  Then we come to Kendell K. Frederick, U.S. Army, only 21 years old, 
from Randallstown, MD. He was in an engineering battalion. He was a 
mechanic who worked with power generators. He wanted to do something 
for his country as wells as for himself. He graduated from one of our 
community high schools called Randallstown High School. He was killed 
outside Tikrit. A roadside bomb detonated near the vehicle he was 
driving. He leaves behind his parents, a stepfather, and other family 
members. He had two sisters and one brother. But he was willing to go 
into the military in order to be able to earn what he needed to earn to 
be able to go on to college.
  All of Randallstown mourns our Kendell. We want to say to Kendell 
Frederick, God bless you.
  Senators of the U.S. Senate, and to all who are watching, those are 
five Marylanders. Knowing they will never be back, we can never forget 
them. The best way for a grateful nation to honor them is to stand up 
for our troops. We need to make sure they have the right pay, that they 
have the right benefits, that they have the right equipment to protect 
themselves. We also need to have a workable plan to draw down our 
troops. Our strategy for Iraq must be worthy of the sacrifices our 
troops have made. The U.N. needs to get more involved in international 
burden sharing--in securing Iraq's borders. We need to continue 
supporting the Iraqi political process, and work with our allies to 
boost training for the Iraqi military. Iraqis want to fight for Iraq, 
and they should. Finally, let's get that Iraqi oil going, so they can 
pay their own bills. We need to see faster progress on all these 
things. When these things happen, we can begin to withdraw our troops 
and bring them home with the honor they have earned.
  God bless our men and women in the U.S. military and all those who 
passed on. And wherever there is an empty chair, we should always fill 
it with our hearts and our remembrance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Frist and 
Senator Reid for this extraordinary occasion, for this bipartisan 
moment of silence.
  Today, we learned that our Nation had crossed a tragic threshold: 
2,000 American service men and women have now been killed in Iraq, and 
more than 15,000 of our sons and daughters have been injured and have 
suffered painful and permanent injuries.
  All are equal in their tragedy. The 2,000th death is no more 
heartbreaking than the first or the 50th. But the enormity of this 
lost--of 2,000 of our best and bravest--breaks America's heart.
  We have seen their pictures. When you look at the faces of the 
fallen, you are struck by several things.
  First, you are overwhelmed by how young they are. Three hundred and 
fifty-seven of these men and women never saw their 21st birthday.
  As a father, I cannot imagine a greater grief than losing a child so 
young.
  When you see the photos of our fallen heroes, you are struck by the 
resolve in their faces. They were young but they had courage, a sense 
of duty and purpose to volunteer and defend America.
  In a few cases, you are also struck by some of the faces that are 
quite old. The oldest American killed in Iraq was 60 years old. The 
faces look like America because they are America. Most were born here. 
Some were Americans and soldiers by choice.
  These 2,000 of our best and bravest came from every State of the 
Union and from the Territories. Seventy-nine were from my home State of 
Illinois. Almost half of those killed were soldiers in the Army, but 
members of this saddest of all rollcalls came from every branch of the 
service.
  About one in four of those killed were members of the National Guard 
and Reserve, one more measure of the enormous sacrifice that these 
branches of our service are making.
  All of these fine men and women volunteered to serve their country. 
All 2,000 gave their lives in that service.
  The great World War II correspondent, Ernie Pyle, wrote a book 
entitled ``Brave Men.'' It is a collection of some of his best writing 
in the European theater. This is what he wrote in the dedication:

       In solemn salute to those thousands of our comrades--great, 
     brave men that they were--for whom there will be no 
     homecoming, ever.

  It is right that we honor the sacrifices of the great, brave men and 
women we have lost in Iraq and the sacrifices of their families and 
loved ones.
  But words alone are not enough. We owe our fallen soldiers and their 
families answers. We owe them accountability. We owe them leadership as 
brave as their service. America cannot allow our Nation to drift into a 
war without end in Iraq.
  GEN John Abizaid, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, said 
recently that the key to military success in Iraq ``is whether we can 
learn from our mistakes.''
  We owe it to those who have fallen, to their loved ones, and to those 
who are still in harm's way, to change course when needed.
  Our troops adapt to changing tactical situations on the ground--and 
so, frankly, do our enemies. Political leaders in Washington must do no 
less.
  Earlier this month, the people of Iraq voted on a constitution. In 
December they are scheduled to hold parliamentary elections, and then, 
we hope, a new government will take over that can lead Iraq forward.
  These are important milestones. They should be milestones not only 
for the Iraqis but for our troops as well. Each step the Iraqis take 
toward the successful establishment of self-governance should bring our 
troops a step closer to home.
  Today is not a day to cast blame or question past decisions. Today is 
a day to mourn our dead, to honor their service and to extend our most 
heartfelt thoughts and prayers to their families. But we cannot put off 
a debate over the best course for the future. Two thousand brave 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have given their lives for 
America. More than 15,000 have suffered devastating, life-changing 
wounds. Over 150,000 still stand in harm's way.
  The choice we face in Iraq is not a choice between resolve or 
retreat. The

[[Page S11804]]

men and women in our military and their loved ones deserve a clear path 
to stability in Iraq so they can come home as soon as humanly possible. 
We do not honor our fallen soldiers simply by adding to their numbers. 
At some moment today or very soon we will cross that sad threshold and 
begin the count toward another thousand lives.
  The American people and every elected leader of both political 
parties owe it to our soldiers and their families to never allow this 
war in Iraq to drift and stall as lives are lost and bodies are broken. 
One more soldier's life lost in Iraq is one too many. The 2,000 
funerals, 2,000 flag-draped coffins, 2,000 grieving families--America 
mourns the loss of these brave soldiers. America's leaders must 
redouble their efforts 2,000 times over to bring this war to an end.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want the majority leader to understand how 
much I appreciate his breaking up his schedule to come here to offer 
this unanimous consent request. I appreciate it very much.
  As I indicated a short time ago, the solemnity of this occasion is 
significant. I want the record to reflect that we have reached, as has 
been said here several times today, regrettably, a milestone in Iraq; 
that is these 2,000 killed. Frankly, Mr. President, it is no longer 
2,000. It is now 2,002.
  There has been--and will continue to be--heated debate about our 
involvement in Iraq, about the flawed pre-war intelligence that some 
say existed, and it appears pretty certain at this time, the selling of 
the war by administration officials, the poor planning, and the 
ideologically driven attempt by the President and others to reshape the 
Middle East through the force of arms.
  These debates will go on, and they should. That is what our country 
is all about. But today--right now this minute--I think it is 
appropriate to set the debate aside and reflect on this solemn mark 
that we have reached so that we can pay tribute to the heroic services 
and the sacrifice that each of these brave Americans made to our 
Nation.
  A few months ago, I was able to travel along with a number of my 
colleagues to the Middle East where I spent time with scores of 
Nevadans serving in Iraq. Any one of us who traveled to the region 
meets with U.S. troops and comes back so impressed and so proud of the 
men and women who serve our country. Many are young, as Senator Durbin 
has so graphically described, just out of high school, and this is 
their first time out of the country. Others are more senior, having 
served in the first Gulf war or in Afghanistan. Most were given short 
notice, year-long deployment, and were serving away from family, 
children, spouses, parents and friends.
  The Nevada Guard unit that I spent time with was tasked with 
transporting critical supplies from Kuwait through Iraq and into 
Baghdad to support combat forces. These were dangerous missions, 
carried out with the real possibility of an attack by Iraqi insurgents.
  I also met with some young Marines from Nevada who were assigned to 
protect U.S. facilities in the fortified Green Zone. Eager, 
enthusiastic, and with a great sense of spirit, these young men took 
pride in their duties, and we took great pride in them.
  But there can be no question that the effort in Iraq has taken a huge 
toll on Americans, and on Nevadans.
  So far, 13 Nevadans have died in this conflict. But the number 13 
does not tell the whole story.
  Let me take just a minute. I will be brief. But I would like to, as 
my dear friend, the junior Senator from Maryland, outlined, tell you 
just a little bit about these 13 Nevadans.
  Marine LCpl Donald Cline, Jr., of Sparks as the first Nevada soldier 
to die in Iraq. During the initial invasion of Southern Iraq, LCpl 
Cline was killed in combat while assisting injured soldiers on March 
23, 2003. He left behind a wife and two sons, Dakota and Dylan.
  Marine 1LT Frederick Pokorney of Nye was killed in action on March 
23, 2003. He left behind a wife and a 3-year old daughter. Lieutenant 
Pokorney was the first Marine from Operation Iraqi Freedom to be buried 
in Arlington National Cemetery.
  Sgt Eric Morris of Sparks was only six weeks into his tour of duty 
when he was killed by a homemade bomb on April 28, 2005. He was awarded 
the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for his bravery.
  Marine Cpl William I. Salazar of Las Vegas was killed on October 15, 
2004, in a suicide bomb attack. Corporal Salazar was the first Marine 
combat photographer to be killed in action in more than 35 years. He 
died on his father's birthday.
  Marine PFC John Lukac of Las Vegas was killed on October 30, 2004, 
when his convoy was attacked. The son of immigrants who escaped 
Communist rule in Czechoslovakia, Private Lukac had been interested in 
joining the Marines since the age of 12.
  LCpl Nicholas Anderson of Las Vegas died on November 12, 2004, when 
his Humvee crashed. It had only been one year since he graduated from 
Bonanza High School.
  Army PFC Daniel Guastaferro of Las Vegas was determined to join the 
Army, despite suffering a snowboarding injury that left him with a 
steel plate in his arm. Private Guastaferro died on January 7, 2005, 
when his vehicle ran off the road. He was 27 years old.
  Marine LCpl Richard A. Perez, Jr. of Las Vegas died in a truck 
accident on February 10, 2005. LCpl Perez enlisted in the Marines 
shortly after his graduation from Coronado High School and volunteered 
to go to Iraq. He died only 10 days before he was supposed to return 
home.
  Cpl Stanley Lapinski died on June 11, 2005 from injuries sustained in 
a roadside explosion. After college, he worked at several jobs, finally 
winding up at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas. September 11 prompted 
him to join the Army. The 37-year old was known in his unit as 
``Pops.''
  Marine Cpl Jesse Jaime of Henderson was killed on June 15, 2005 when 
the vehicle he was riding in hit an explosive device. The 22-year-old 
had followed his twin brother's footsteps by enlisting in the Marines.
  Spc Anthony S. Cometa of Las Vegas was killed on June 16, 2005 when 
his Humvee flipped over. He was a member of the 1864th Transportation 
Company, which I met with when I visited Kuwait and Iraq. Specialist 
Cometa was the first Nevada Army National Guard soldier to die in Iraq. 
He died just one day after his 21st birthday.
  2LT James J. Cathey of Reno was killed by a roadside bomb on August 
21, 2005. After graduating from the University of Colorado in 2004, he 
headed to Quantico, VA, for officer training. Known as ``Cat,'' Cathey 
and his wife had just found out they were going to have their first 
child before he left for Iraq.
  Spc Joseph Martinez of Las Vegas was killed on August 27, 2005. He 
was killed in combat while serving his second tour of duty in Iraq. His 
mother said he always wanted to be a soldier.
  To all of these Nevada families--and to the families of all 2,000 
U.S. troops who have fallen in Iraq--our Nation will forever be in debt 
to you. Your sons and daughters are heroes, and their sacrifice will 
never be forgotten.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2226

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2226, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2226.

  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that certain local educational agencies shall be 
 eligible to receive a fiscal year 2005 payment under section 8002 or 
      8003 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), insert 
     the following:

     SEC. ___. APPLICATIONS FOR IMPACT AID PAYMENT.

       Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 8005(d) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 7705(d)(2) and (3)), the Secretary of Education shall 
     treat as timely filed, and shall process for payment, an 
     application under section

[[Page S11805]]

     8002 or section 8003 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7702, 7703) for 
     fiscal year 2005 from a local educational agency--
       (1) that, for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004, 
     submitted an application by the date specified by the 
     Secretary of Education under section 8005(c) of such Act for 
     the fiscal year;
       (2) for which a reduction of more than $1,000,000 was made 
     under section 8005(d)(2) of such Act by the Secretary of 
     Education as a result of the agency's failure to file a 
     timely application under section 8002 or 8003 of such Act for 
     fiscal year 2005; and
       (3) that submits an application for fiscal year 2005 during 
     the period beginning on February 2, 2004, and ending on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, Senate amendment No. 2226 will provide 
Impact Aid to the children of the service personnel in Fort Carson, CO. 
It will restore $1.2 million in needed educational Impact Aid funding 
to the El Paso school district. The money for this amendment has 
already been appropriated and sits within the Department of Education. 
The El Paso school district educates thousands, serving our men and 
women at the Fort Carson military base. Many loved ones of the students 
and staff of the El Paso school district have been deployed to Iraq as 
part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, over 11,000 soldiers from 
Fort Carson are currently deployed in Iraq today. That is one-half of 
the fort's total force.
  Due to a technical error, the Department of Education denied the 
school district access to $1.2 million set aside for that school 
district's program. The result is the district may have to eliminate as 
many as 12 teachers and teachers' aides positions. This amendment 
simply corrects a technical error between the district and the 
Department of Education and permits the school to access money already 
set aside for it.
  I note, too, that I have discussed this issue with the HELP 
Committee.
  Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy have graciously consented to 
the inclusion of this amendment on this bill. I have also been in close 
contact with Senators from Arizona and New Mexico who face similar 
challenges. They support this measure as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set this amendment aside to 
call up amendment No. 2224 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would suggest, if I may, that we 
conclude action on this amendment, with a brief reply by this side, so 
we can move ahead with the amendment, anticipating its adoption. I 
think that would be a more orderly process. So technically, I do 
object--with that suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I said, I think it is preferable, as a 
procedural matter, to take up the amendments one at a time so we can 
conclude debate on the amendments.
  I believe this amendment is a good amendment. It would permit the 
Secretary of Education to treat as timely filed applications from El 
Paso, CO, school district and Window Rock, AZ, for impact aid. There is 
no cost involved. There is sound explanation as to why they were not 
timely filed.
  In order for the Secretary of Education to make the payments, there 
needs to be legislative action. The Senator from Colorado has provided 
the vehicle for doing so. I support the amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I would then ask my friend from 
Pennsylvania whether we should move for unanimous consent on the 
adoption of the amendment I just proposed.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment on impact aid, I urge its 
adoption, or you can articulate it for unanimous consent to be adopted. 
One way or another, let's adopt it and move on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2226) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I also thank the 
chairman of the committee, my friend from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 2224

  Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2224 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2224.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Education to conduct a study to 
 evaluate the effectiveness of violence prevention programs receiving 
   funding under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The Secretary of Education shall conduct a study 
     to evaluate the effectiveness of violence prevention programs 
     receiving funding under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) based on, among 
     other things, evidence of deterrent effect, strong research 
     design, sustained effects, and multiple site replication. The 
     study shall also include information on what regular 
     assessment mechanisms exist to allow the Department of 
     Education to evaluate the efficacy of such programs on an 
     ongoing basis. Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall 
     submit a report to Congress describing the findings of the 
     study.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am a proponent of evaluating the 
effectiveness of the actions we take and the programs we enact here in 
this Capitol. That is because I believe that results do matter. At the 
end of the day, we can all say what we tried to do, but Americans will 
judge us by the results we achieve. We all have a responsibility to see 
that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and well.
  Amendment No. 2224 is a ``results matter'' amendment. It will simply 
require the Department of Education to conduct an assessment of the 
effectiveness of youth violence prevention programs.
  These programs are vitally important in my home State of Colorado and 
across the Nation. During my time as Colorado's attorney general, I 
spent much of my time working on the investigation of the horrific 
murders involving many young people at Columbine High School, which 
remains today the bloodiest school shooting in American history.
  As we worked to learn the lessons from that terrible tragedy in 
Colorado, we also attempted to implement programs in our schools to 
create safer schools and safer school communities. As I went through 
the process of assembling information about how we create the safest 
school environments possible, it became obvious to me that though we 
spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars on programs intended to 
deal with the issue of youth violence prevention, we do not know 
whether many of those programs work. Indeed, when we look at the facts 
and we look at what the science tells us, many of those programs 
actually harm our children more than they actually help our children.
  So it is important we measure the effectiveness of these programs. 
This amendment will ask the Department of Education to do exactly that. 
I believe our violence prevention programs should actually work and 
that we should be able to measure them with the results we intend them 
to have. We owe it to the next generation to ensure that these programs 
are as effective as possible in preventing youth violence. This 
amendment will do this by providing an assessment of the programs.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of amendment No. 2224.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment calls for the Secretary of 
Education to undertake a study to evaluate the effectiveness of 
violence prevention under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. I 
think it is a good idea.
  So frequently we make appropriations for certain purposes and never 
have any concrete idea as to how well the programs are working. One 
area analogous to this is the money we spent on literacy training and 
job training, so-called rehabilitation in our correctional system. It 
is not enough we spend the funding, never having an idea as to really 
what works and what

[[Page S11806]]

does not work in terms of stopping recidivism.
  I believe the Senator from Colorado has struck a good idea. I support 
the amendment and join with the Senator from Colorado in urging its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2224) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 2225

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2225 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2225.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for a study of national service programs in the 
                          rural United States)

       On page 196, strike line 14 and insert the following:
     tional poverty level: Provided further, That the Corporation 
     shall use a portion of the funds made available under this 
     heading to conduct an evaluation, after consultation with 
     experts on national service programs and rural community 
     leaders, of programs carried out under the national service 
     laws (consisting of that Act and the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990) in rural areas, to determine utilization 
     of the programs and to develop new and innovative strategies 
     that would prioritize geographic diversity of the programs 
     carried out under the national service laws to increase the 
     presence of the programs in rural areas.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, amendment No. 2225 also makes sure that 
our national service programs effectively serve all of our citizens. 
This amendment calls on the Corporation for National and Community 
Service to report on efforts to bring its programs to rural 
communities.
  These programs include, first, the AmeriCorps program, which has done 
wonders, which was created in 1994 and provides opportunities for more 
than 70,000 Americans to work in 3,000 public agencies, faith-based and 
other community organizations. Through the various AmeriCorps programs, 
volunteers tutor and mentor youth, build affordable housing, teach 
computer skills, take care of our environment, and help communities 
respond to disasters. In exchange, they are given an opportunity to 
build career skills, to invest in a community, and are provided a small 
educational stipend.
  The programs also include Senior Corps, which recognizes that seniors 
are one of America's most vital resources.
  The programs also include Learn and Serve America. Learn and Serve 
America supports schools, higher education institutions, and community-
based organizations that engage students, their teachers, and others in 
service-learning. Through Learn and Serve, students get their hands 
dirty. Service-learning connects teaching in the classroom with 
communities. Nearly 1 million students participated in Learn and Serve 
programs last year.
  The resources marshaled by these service programs--students, elders, 
and energized and committed people--can help unlock the door to rural 
development in America. It is my hope that the corporation will come up 
with new and innovative strategies for increasing rural participation 
in national service programs. This amendment will not cost additional 
money and has the potential to benefit rural communities throughout the 
Nation. We owe it to our rural communities to make sure our national 
programs are serving them. We must not allow rural America to be left 
behind by these very important national service programs.
  Mr. President, amendment No. 2225 would direct the Corporation of 
National and Community Service, CNCS, to conduct an evaluation of the 
presence of their programs in rural America. The study would include 
programs funded by the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 and the 
National and Community Service Act of 1990, presence in Rural America. 
In addition, CNCS, in consultation with national service experts and 
rural community leaders, is directed to develop new and innovative 
strategies to prioritize increasing rural communities' participation in 
CNCS programs. The amendment does not require additional funding.
  As per Jane Oates at 4-8460, Senator Kennedy has no objections to the 
amendment.
  As per Beth Beuhlmann at 4-6770, Senator Enzi is reviewing the 
amendment language, but appears to have no objections since the 
amendment is cost neutral.
  As per Brandon Avila at 606-6728, Corporation for National and 
Community Service, Office of Legislation and Government Affairs, they 
are reviewing but are supporting of conducting evaluations that help 
increase CNCS programs in rural areas.
  In addition, we have touched base with Voices for National Service, a 
national service non-profit coalition. They are very supporting of the 
amendment's intent.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of amendment No. 2225.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before the amendment is adopted, I would 
like to have an opportunity to speak on this side of the aisle.
  This amendment would use a portion of the funds for the Corporation 
for National and Community Service to do a study of national service 
programs in rural areas. I think, again, this is a good idea which the 
Senator from Colorado is offering. Rural areas are too often 
underserved and underfocused. Pennsylvania has more people living in 
rural areas than any other State in the Union. It might be surprising, 
but we do.
  I think it is a good amendment, and I will now defer to the Senator 
from Colorado for urging its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2225) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2223

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, finally, I call up amendment No. 2223 and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2223.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase funding for the safe and drug-free schools and 
                          communities program)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional 
     $15,000,000 to carry out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7111 et seq.).

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, amendment No. 2223 addresses a serious 
and growing problem that we face in our urban and rural communities. As 
attorney general of Colorado, I saw firsthand the growth of 
methamphetamine problems in communities throughout my State. Meth usage 
has increased in rural towns and communities across our Nation.
  Some of the facts are startling.
  According to the National Association of Counties, meth use is the 
Nation's most serious local drug problem today.
  Secondly, 58 out of 500 county law enforcement officials have said 
methamphetamine use is, in fact, their largest problem.
  Third, 87 percent of county law enforcement officials reported 
increases

[[Page S11807]]

in meth arrests in just the last 3 years. In the West, methamphetamine 
use is a growing problem. Between 67 and 75 percent of the western 
counties rated meth as their No. 1 drug problem.
  The labs for meth production are rising in rural areas. Because meth 
can be made in the home and has harsh effects on the environment, it is 
easier to hide from authorities in rural areas. Three of our most rural 
States--Missouri, Iowa, and Tennessee--have the highest number of meth 
labs, with over 5,000 meth labs in those three States alone. Meth labs 
in Colorado have been on the rise, with over 225 meth labs this last 
year in my State.
  In a report by Congressional Quarterly, the Drug Enforcement Agency 
said that meth use is the No. 1 drug threat in rural America. The 
production of meth has spiked, from 327 labs nationwide being busted in 
1995 to over 17,000 meth labs busted in 2005; that is, in a period of 
10 years, we have gone from busting 327 meth labs to over 17,000 meth 
labs.
  Our health infrastructure has dealt with the meth use increase as 
well, with emergency room visits due to meth use doubling in 7 years.
  This amendment I have proposed will restore $15 million in funding to 
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools State grant program, which funds 
virtually all of the drug prevention programs in our Nation, to ensure 
that our schools and communities are as safe and drug-free as we can 
make them. We need to help our young people understand the dangers of 
drugs, including meth, and this amendment takes an important step 
toward making this issue the Federal priority it should be.
  Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would add $15 million to a 
program. While it is a very good program, regrettably, this would 
exceed the allocation which has been given to the subcommittee. I, 
therefore, have to oppose it. It is subject to a point of order.
  For the record, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act, as amended, that the amendment provides 
budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation under the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the 
budget and, therefore, is not in order.
  As I had discussed with the Senator from Colorado, this will require 
60 votes for the Senator from Colorado to prevail. So the choice is his 
as to whether we move ahead to vote on it at some point during the 
consideration of the bill. I ask how the Senator from Colorado would 
like to proceed.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of the act for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask that 
we dispense with a rollcall vote and that we just do a voice vote on 
this amendment at the appropriate time.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is acceptable, provided those on the floor can 
muster a no which either exceeds the ayes or is so recognized by the 
Chair to be the predominant voice vote. I call for the question on a 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act in relation to amendment No. 2223.
  In the opinion of the Chair, the motion has failed and the Senate has 
not obtained the three-fifths majority necessary for passage. The point 
of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Colorado for coming forward at 
this early stage with these four amendments to help move processing of 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania 
for his leadership, not only on this bill but also on so many other 
important issues that we are working on in the Senate today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2194

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Reed-Collins LIHEAP 
amendment. I want to speak to all of my colleagues, but mostly I want 
to address my comments to my colleagues from the South and the West. I 
thank Senator Jack Reed and Senator Susan Collins for their 
cosponsorship of amendment No. 2194, bringing forward the issue of 
LIHEAP funding. We all know that LIHEAP funding has decreased in real 
dollars for over a decade now. Senators Reed and Collins have shown 
true leadership in offering their amendment. Hopefully, we will vote on 
it today. They have shown national leadership with what they are trying 
to accomplish.
  In the face of rising energy prices, the poorest among us have been 
hit the hardest. They are paying about $3 at the pump right now. We 
have had a record hot summer in many parts of the country. Their 
utility bills have been going up and up. Low-income families need our 
help. I believe we can do better. We can think of ways to help our low-
income constituents and low-income Americans. The Reed-Collins 
amendment can do that. It adds $3.1 billion to the core LIHEAP program. 
This is what Southern and Western Senators need to understand. I don't 
want any of my colleagues to be surprised when the amendment comes to 
the floor for a vote today. I hope that all their staff who are 
listening will please advise their bosses accordingly. This money will 
go to LIHEAP's core program.
  When I say ``core program,'' that means it will not be designated as 
emergency funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. Why 
is that significant? It is significant for this basic reason. By giving 
the money to the core program instead of HHS, the amendment helps put 
low-income heating applicants in Southern and Western States on better 
footing.
  Let me explain. In the past, Health and Human Services has had 
discretion. When we put emergency funding there, they have had 
discretion on how they spend it. Their track record has been very 
clear. They seem to prioritize areas of the country that are heated 
with home heating oil. What we are trying to do is put the money into 
the core program, which means it goes into the formula that has been 
long established in Federal law, which means in States all across 
America--States such as Arkansas in the South and the West--people who 
are going to be facing record high prices for natural gas this winter 
will receive some relief.
  Unfortunately, when we get emergency funding, many of the States are 
not helped as much as the formula would help them. I am not disputing 
at all that the Northeast and the Midwest face very harsh winters, more 
so than the South and some parts of the West. But we have low-income 
citizens in our States, too, who need to heat their homes this winter. 
I believe it is a more effective and better way to put money into the 
core LIHEAP program, sending it through the formula, rather than 
leaving it to the discretion of HHS.
  I am happy to join Senators Reed and Collins in this effort. It is a 
bipartisan effort. I want my colleagues to understand that. In my view, 
it is better than past proposals. It is better because it is more 
equitable in its distribution. It is bipartisan. Southern and Western 
Senators have a chance to help the people in their States with this 
vote. It will help people all across America. This amendment also 
recognizes the high cost of natural gas this winter. All the experts 
who have looked at this say natural gas is going to be at a record high 
price for consumers this winter. It acknowledges the high cost of other 
forms of energy to heat our homes.
  I don't want my colleagues to be surprised when this comes to the 
floor for a vote at some point this afternoon or tonight. I would hate 
for any Senator to vote against this and then later learn that this is 
their best opportunity to help their constituents during this very cold 
and expensive winter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been proceeding reasonably well 
on handling amendments. We had a short period between 12 and 12:30 
where we did not have amendments pending. I understand we will have an 
amendment presented at about 6 o'clock this evening. But that leaves us 
with an hour and 22 minutes. The distinguished

[[Page S11808]]

Senator from Texas wishes to speak for 10 or 15 minutes. We can 
accommodate his schedule. We have quite a number of amendments which 
have been filed and others where there has been an indication that 
there will be amendments. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor. 
Floor time is hard to find. When this bill moves ahead tomorrow or the 
day after or Friday, the bill is going to be finished this week, 
however long it takes us. We are anxious to conclude the work of the 
Senate. Now is the time.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from Texas 10 to 15 minutes, as 
he chooses, and ask unanimous consent for his recognition to speak for 
up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Texas is recognized.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished 
manager of the bill, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on 
which I am honored to serve, for his accommodation. I certainly do not 
want to detract from the efforts to complete this important 
appropriations bill. I do thank the Senator for yielding to me so I may 
address some of the historic events occurring today in Iraq. This has 
been the subject of other speakers. I thought it was important that 
while this is on the minds of a lot of people, that we talk about some 
of our successes in Iraq and what the facts are with regard to what 
reality is like there on the ground.
  I am disappointed to hear some Members, primarily on the other side 
of the aisle, this morning blaming America for the insurgency and 
claiming that our military does not have a plan for victory. That is 
not true as a factual matter, and they know it. As recently as a couple 
of weeks ago, we had the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, 
General George Casey, and the CENTCOM commander, General John Abizaid 
here, along with Secretary Rumsfeld and others, to talk precisely about 
what conditions were like on the ground in Iraq, how our plan was 
going, and what the future looked like. We do have a plan, and I wanted 
to talk about it for a minute.
  I want to note my concern that to use Iraq as a convenient political 
football only undercuts the brave young men and women who are fighting 
there, not only on behalf of the beleaguered Iraqi people but on behalf 
of us here. We know that the central front in the war on terror today 
is in Iraq. We know that foreign fighters and other jihadists who 
adhere to an extremist ideology, who believe that they can use force to 
kill innocent Americans because they simply hate who we are and our way 
of life, that Iraq is where they are being drawn. If we leave 
prematurely, if we fail to finish the job that we have undertaken 
there, then it will simply leave a haven available for those who want 
to train, recruit, and finance international terrorism and who will 
then threaten us on our own shores, as we were hit dramatically on 
September 11.
  In reality, it is the critics of our military that have no plan. They 
simply want to cut and run. They believe in retreat. The most 
disturbing of all, their proposals serve merely to divide the American 
people.
  I am particularly concerned when I hear people make the argument, as 
I have heard on the floor of the Senate, that Iraq was not a threat to 
the United States and the rest of the world. Perhaps these critics need 
to be reminded of the statement of President Clinton in 1998 which 
clearly lays out the threat that Iraq posed at that time. President 
Clinton said, talking about Saddam:

       What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take 
     some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more 
     opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass 
     destruction . . . He will then conclude he can go right on 
     and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. 
     And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the 
     arsenal.

  This was on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton.
  Then, on December 16, 1998, President Clinton said:

       The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, 
     he threatens the well-being of this people, the peace of the 
     region, and the security of the world. The best way to end 
     that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, 
     a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a 
     government that respects the rights of its people.

  That was President Clinton on December 16, 1998. I am pleased that 
this body passed that same year the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which 
stated:

       It should be the policy of the United States to support 
     efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from 
     power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic 
     government to replace that regime.

  The Congress passed that legislation because, indeed, Saddam Hussein 
was a threat in 1998 and remained a threat. Fortunately, today, he is 
no longer a threat. But we must stay the course.
  Complaints without solutions are simply not productive. What are the 
proposals coming from those who criticize our current efforts in Iraq? 
Some complain that we don't have enough troops in Iraq to finish the 
job, but at the same time all they talk about is creating an arbitrary 
timetable for cutting and running and bringing those troops home before 
they finish the job, before we finish the job. Then others say our 
presence in Iraq actually creates additional terrorism. But what they 
don't explain is what we would leave the Iraqis with if we were to 
leave prematurely. Again, complaints are not solutions.
  GEN George Casey, whom I mentioned a moment ago, who is the leader of 
the coalition forces in Iraq, said when he testified before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee:

       We're in a tough fight but we've been in tough fights 
     before to advance the cause of democracy and to protect our 
     way of life. We should not be afraid of this fight. We and 
     the Iraqi people will prevail in this battle of wills if we 
     don't lose ours.

  Again:

       We and the Iraqi people will prevail in this battle of 
     wills if we don't lose ours.

  Just this morning, we heard that the Independent Electoral Commission 
of Iraq has announced an overwhelming majority of Iraqis has approved 
the country's constitution; that is, 78 percent of those who voted yes 
to approve that constitution which has now been cleared. You know what. 
Their voter turnout was 63 percent, better than most elections we hold 
here in the United States, given our long tradition of constitutional 
democracy.
  Soon the Iraqi people will have a chance to elect their elected 
representatives in parliamentary elections on December 15 which will 
provide the final step in their march to democracy and self-
determination.
  Yes, the Nation of Iraq has made remarkable political progress in the 
last 2 years, but they still have a way to go to achieve a fully 
functioning democracy. Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice 
testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in her 
eloquent remarks she clearly outlined the political and military 
strategy in Iraq: Clear, hold, build. Clear, hold, build. That is to 
clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build 
durable national Iraqi institutions.
  I could not agree more with Secretary Rice. This is a strategy that 
has been articulated for quite some time now by the President of the 
United States. This strategy is the only way we will see the blossoming 
of a democratic Iraq.
  In 2003, not that long ago, the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein was 
brought to an end. The Iraqi people were liberated and a provisional 
government established. In 2004, a five-step plan was announced to end 
occupation in Iraq and to bring our troops home, and in 2005 that 
transition is well underway.
  Our strategy is working. The Iraqi people will vote in elections in 
December and soon will select a government that will serve them for the 
next 4 years.
  As I mentioned, Iraqi participation in these recent elections was 
very strong, including among Sunnis who boycotted the earlier election 
last January. These elections were also much more peaceful than the 
previous elections. A clear path is being charted to implement the rule 
of law and we must continue our support for the Iraqi people to achieve 
success.
  It is clear that the implementation of the rule of law is the next 
step, a necessary next step to achieve stability in Iraq. It is in the 
absence of democracy, it is in the vacuum created by the absence of the 
rule of law, that there is no forum, no mechanism for justice to

[[Page S11809]]

address grievances in which extremism will rear again its ugly head.
  Only 2 short years ago the people of Iraq were oppressed by a brutal 
dictator. Those who privately yearned for freedom held their silence 
out of fear for their lives. No more. As it has been said before, 
freedom is on the march.
  Part of implementing law and justice, not to mention providing a 
measure of closure for the people of Iraq, is the trial of Saddam 
Hussein which began on October 19. Unfortunately, this trial has been 
postponed because--and it comes as perhaps no surprise--the defense 
lawyers representing him said they needed more time to prepare.
  Well, I for one do not begrudge them additional time, but it is not 
so much for them, because I doubt any level of preparation, any amount 
of investigation will absolve Saddam Hussein of the blood that is on 
his hands, but I do believe that perception is important, and it is 
important that the public perception, the international perspective be 
that this is, indeed, a fair proceeding and that Saddam Hussein, even 
the most brutal of tyrants and dictators, is, indeed, entitled to the 
protection of the rule of law and entitled to a fair process.
  Of course, this trial is one of the first formal acts in the path to 
restoring the rule of law, and it is important Iraq demonstrate to the 
world that it can conduct this trial in a fair manner, as it is a 
foundational and deeply symbolic proceeding.
  A series of declassified U.S. intelligence documents and other U.S. 
agency reports provides a wealth of evidence substantiating Saddam 
Hussein's human rights abuses and more evidence of Saddam's brutality 
is provided by the people of Iraq who had suffered under his boot heel 
for years. A portion of these documents concerned Saddam's 
responsibility, along with other members of his regime, for the 
massacre in 1982 of Shiites in a town 35 miles north of Baghdad after 
an unsuccessful coup d'etat, including an attempt on the dictator's 
life. It is said he may be tried at least a dozen times for crimes he 
committed during his regime, to include gassing of Kurds and 
suppression of a Shiite uprising in the south. However, the Iraqi 
Government is reportedly considering foregoing additional trials if 
Saddam is convicted as expected and such conviction results in the 
death penalty under the laws of the sovereign nation of Iraq.
  In remarks before the United Nations, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar 
Zebari said that under the rule of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was ``a 
murderous tyranny that lasted 35 years and today we are unearthing 
thousands of victims in horrifying testament.'' In a report entitled 
``Mass Graves: Iraq's Legacy of Terror,'' compiled by the United States 
Agency for International Development, it is estimated that nearly 
400,000 Iraqis lie buried in mass graves--Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, 
Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, all killed because neither Saddam 
Hussein nor his regime valued life in the least.

  I am confident that some day in the not too distant future an 
appropriate measure of justice will be meted out to Saddam Hussein for 
the atrocities he committed against his own people, the people of Iraq. 
And that is as it should be. I am sure that the symbolism of this first 
tribunal being held in Iraq to try their former dictator is not lost on 
the people of Iraq. This restoration of the rule of law, this process 
which is designed to administer justice, is commensurate with the rule 
of law.
  We must continue working with the Iraqi people to ensure that 
democracy, freedom, progress, free markets, self-governance, and the 
rule of law are allowed to flourish. It is the only way to promote 
stability in that country and throughout the greater Middle East.
  There is no enemy on the face of the Earth that can defeat the people 
of the United States of America unless, of course, it is the American 
people ourselves, by losing our resolve to stay the course, to finish a 
job that was just in its initiation and which is just in its goals. We 
must stay the course. We must maintain our resolve. To hear the 
comments of those here in this body and elsewhere who would attempt to 
hijack this just cause in the interest of political gamesmanship does 
nothing but harm our efforts, the resolve of the American people, and 
undermine the heroic and noble efforts being carried out on a daily 
basis by our young men and women who are fighting in freedom's cause, 
not just for us but for the people of Iraq.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the regular order is that we are back on 
the bill, is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2194

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, obviously, the amendment that is now 
pending of the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Maine is 
an amendment I am sympathetic to. Those of us who come from the 
northern States, whether they be in the Midwest or New England, 
recognize that winter can be a beautiful time. Snow is wonderful, 
lovely, and certainly brings skiers to our region, and we very much 
encourage that. But it can also be an extraordinarily difficult time, 
difficult for people who are living on a fixed income, a set income, 
difficult for folks who have to find ways to heat their home and also 
meet the expenses of everyday life. Certainly keeping home heating is 
about as important an expense as you can have in everyday life. It is 
especially hard on senior citizens, seniors who have obviously fixed 
incomes in most instances. When the price of their fuel oil jumps 
significantly, they do not have a whole lot of opportunity to adjust 
their income because they are no longer earning a salary, usually, in 
most instances in order to meet that increase in cost. We have 
obviously seen a dramatic rise in the cost of energy prices, especially 
home heating oil and in the gas area for homes. So the issue becomes 
how do we help these people who, through no action of their own, find 
themselves in a dire financial situation and facing a very stark 
situation this winter, should they not have the dollars necessary to 
pay for their home heating oil.
  We are talking about people of very low incomes, people who are on 
fixed incomes, in most instances people who are senior citizens, and 
the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program which has been in place for a 
number of years has been a way of helping these people bridge this 
period, and it has always been focused on the neediest of the needy. It 
has been a well-administered program, at least in the State of New 
Hampshire where people who were clearly in distress, who have 
situations where they simply are unable to afford the cost of keeping 
their home heated in the middle of an extremely cold winter, had a 
place to go to get some assistance.
  It is a good program for that reason. It has been strongly supported 
over the years in a bipartisan way. The administration has consistently 
funded this program and has, to its credit, always released money early 
when it was necessary due to cold weather hitting us sooner than might 
have been originally anticipated under the traditional weather 
patterns, which is what happened last year. But this year we do face 
the unique situation of these huge runups in the cost of home heating 
oil in New England specifically and, of course, the gas across the 
Midwest and into parts of New England, and this runup is a function of 
a lot of different events. The Katrina situation is a big part of it. 
It has disrupted the refining capacity of our Nation rather 
significantly. Obviously, the instability of the Middle East is another 
part of it. The demand which is now being created in parts of Asia, 
especially China and India, as those economies expand, is part of it.
  But whatever the reason, we are seeing a dramatic jump in the cost of 
home heating oil specifically and therefore we know a lot of people, as 
we head into winter--and believe me, it is getting cold in New 
Hampshire. In fact, today there was a fair amount of snow in many parts 
of our State--we know these people are going to need some help, people 
of very low income, people who are living on very fixed and tight 
budgets.
  So it is appropriate that we expand the LIHEAP program to meet this 
unanticipated cost which is no fault of anybody's, certainly not those 
who are receiving the benefit of this program.
  The question is how do we expand this program? Over the last few 
weeks, we have had a number of attempts to expand this program. It 
really was not

[[Page S11810]]

in a manner we call fiscally prudent or responsible, and we simply said 
we are going to put a lot of money in this program, money not budgeted, 
money outside the budget, and do it in a manner which would have 
violated the budget. So points of order were made against those 
proposals, and those points of order have all been sustained, and 
appropriately so.
  We do have a budget under which we must live. The issue is how do we 
set priorities within that budget. Right now I believe one of our 
actions should be to set a priority to put more money into the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We should absolutely do that, 
but we should do it in a way that is responsible so we do not end up 
passing the bills for today's energy costs on to our children by 
creating more debt.
  I don't think senior citizens who benefit from the low-income energy 
program want us to go into debt to pay for their energy costs and end 
up with our children paying the cost of their energy today, when their 
children might need the same type of support and would be less able to 
get it if they had to pay for not only their energy costs but also pay 
for the low-income energy costs of the last generation, the generation 
of today.
  The proper way to do this is to increase the LIHEAP program in a way 
that is fiscally responsible. The best way to do that is to look at 
what the need is, to begin with. The program costs or additional costs 
of the program, which we know will probably be generated as they can 
best be projected, on top of the money already being spent on the 
program, which is about $2.4 billion, is about $1.276 billion.
  This number of the additional cost increase, which is a fairly 
significant number--it is a lot of money--that was essentially reached 
by calculating the increase in energy cost as a result of a runup in 
energy prices and finding out how much oil and gas was used last year 
by this program and then basically converting that to the increase in 
the cost of the program.
  So the number that has been generally agreed to around here as being 
the correct number and the reasonable number and the number that would 
be consistent with the historic needs of the program is $1.276 billion.
  It is not me saying this, by the way. I didn't come to that number. 
Actually, 41 Members of the Senate signed a letter saying that. They 
wrote the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee on September 20--not that long ago--and asked for an increase 
in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $1.27 billion. 
Signing that letter were Senator Collins and Senator Reed, who are the 
authors of the pending amendment, along with, as I mentioned, 41 other 
Members, which is a fairly large number of the membership of the 
Senate, many of whom are from the Northeast. They reached that number 
through the calculations I just said. So that number is a reasonable 
number.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter, signed by 41 Senators, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2005.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd: Hurricane 
     Katrina upset the lives of millions, displacing families from 
     their homes and inflicting severe economic damage. Without 
     question, the people of the Gulf region deserve our support, 
     and we stand ready to help. As the Appropriations Committee 
     considers an urgently needed comprehensive supplemental 
     appropriations bill to address Hurricane Katrina's 
     devastation as well as its economic and energy impacts on the 
     nation, we urge you to include $1.276 billion in emergency 
     Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds. 
     With this additional funding, the LIHEAP program will be able 
     to provide the same level of purchasing power as last year. 
     This funding is critical to avoid a looming, but preventable, 
     crisis for millions of additional Americans caused by the 
     soaring cost and diminishing affordability of home heating 
     fuel as winter approaches.
       The effects of Hurricane Katrina are being felt by 
     Americans outside of the Gulf Region as gasoline, heating 
     oil, and natural gas prices rise in the wake of this 
     disaster. Indeed, there is an imminent emergency confronting 
     millions of low-income Americans unable to afford the cost of 
     rising energy prices. The current skyrocketing in energy 
     prices coupled with energy debt remaining from last winter 
     and this summer are leading to increased disconnections and 
     arrears among consumers as the winter heating season begins--
     threatening the well-being of low-income families and 
     seniors. This situation warrants the provision of emergency 
     LIHEAP funding in the comprehensive supplemental request.
       Prior to Hurricane Katrina's devastation in the Gulf 
     region, Americans were facing record prices for oil, natural 
     gas, and propane. Hurricane Katrina damaged platforms and 
     ports and curtailed production at refineries in the Gulf of 
     Mexico, the source of almost a third of U.S. oil output. 
     Crude oil for October delivery stands at over $66 a barrel on 
     the New York Mercantile Exchange. Heating oil prices 
     increased dramatically after Hurricane Katrina. Prices 
     averaged $1.70 per gallon in July, but now stand over $2 per 
     gallon. Before Hurricane Katrina struck, the Energy 
     Information Administration (EIA) predicted a 16 percent 
     increase in heating oil costs. This increase comes on top of 
     the 34 percent increase during the 2003-2004 winter. Natural 
     gas prices also rose dramatically after Hurricane Katrina, 
     and now stand over $12, more than 140 percent increase 
     compared to last year at this time. EIA's Short-term Energy 
     Outlook reports, ``The ranges for expected heating fuel 
     expenditure increases this winter are 69 percent to 77 
     percent for natural gas in the Midwest; 17 percent to 18 
     percent for electricity in the South; 29 percent to 33 
     percent for heating oil in the Northeast; and 39 percent to 
     43 percent for propane in the Midwest.'' Heating costs for 
     the average family using heating oil are projected to hit 
     $1,666 during the upcoming winter. This represents an 
     increase of $403 over last winter's prices and $714 over the 
     winter heating season of 2003-04. For families using natural 
     gas, prices are projected to hit $1,568, representing an 
     increase of $611 over last year's prices and $643 over 2003-
     04. States need additional funding immediately to help 
     low-income families and seniors to ensure they can afford 
     to heat their homes. States are bracing for potentially 
     crisis conditions caused by the lack of affordable heating 
     sources, particularly for seniors and the disabled.
       Almost daily, newspapers are reporting on the impacts of 
     higher energy costs for consumers. Hurricane Katrina's impact 
     on energy markets comes on top of soaring energy prices over 
     the past several years. Utilities from New England to Florida 
     to Oregon are seeking rate increases. In addition to rising 
     energy prices, the economic devastation in the Gulf region is 
     likely to impact the national economy. Many more Americans 
     will need LIHEAP assistance than the 5 million households 
     that received aid during FY 2005. State LIHEAP programs are 
     expecting a major increase in applications due to the rapid 
     increase in home energy prices and this additional funding 
     will allow them to address the need for assistance.
       Residents and business affected by Hurricane Katrina 
     deserve the nation's full support and financial assistance, 
     and we stand ready and willing to do everything we can to 
     help. We recognize that the Committee is still working to 
     assess the needs wrought by Hurricane Katrina and will face 
     difficult priorities in determining emergency funding. We 
     feel that preventing hardship for millions of Americans by 
     acting to provide LIHEAP emergency funds before we have 
     another crisis on our hands is an important priority. Thank 
     you for your serious consideration of our request.
           Sincerely,
         Susan M. Collins, Jeff Bingaman, Olympia Snowe, Jack 
           Reed, Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Debbie Stabenow, Carl Levin, Dick Lugar, 
           Chris Dodd, Evan Bayh, Patrick Leahy, Mike DeWine, Mark 
           Dayton, Jay Rockefeller, Barack Obama, Edward M. 
           Kennedy, Jon S. Corzine, Max Baucus, Ken Salazar, Joe 
           Lieberman, Barbara A. Mikulski, Paul S. Sarbanes, Jim 
           Jeffords, Herb Kohl, Maria Cantwell, Kent Conrad, Lisa 
           Murkowski, Byron L. Dorgan, Russell D. Feingold, 
           Charles Schumer, Lincoln Chafee, John F. Kerry, Mark 
           Pryor, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne Feinstein, Dick 
           Durbin, Gordon H. Smith, Conrad Burns, Tom Carper, Pete 
           V. Domenici, Tim Johnson, Ron Wyden, Norm Coleman, Jim 
           Talent.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think that establishes pretty 
definitively what the number is. In fact, I drafted an amendment, which 
I intend to offer at this time, which would increase the funding for 
low-income energy assistance by an amount of $1.276 billion. The $1.276 
billion which is, I believe, the agreed-to number about which 41 
Members of this Senate, all of whom I believe are probably supporting 
various amendments in this area, signed a letter asking the Chairman 
and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee to put in place an 
increase in the LIHEAP program--is going to be the amount by which my 
amendment increases the LIHEAP program.

[[Page S11811]]

  That is a significant increase, a rather dramatic increase, in fact, 
and it represents, as a percentage, probably about a 50-percent 
increase in the program or well over a 50-percent increase; in fact, a 
58-percent increase in funding and, in fact, hits the target we need to 
aim at in order to make sure that people of low incomes, living on 
fixed incomes, will have the necessary support they need to fund the 
cost of their energy this winter during the coldest months so they do 
not have to be put in a situation where they choose between food and 
warmth, something that would be inexcusable and inappropriate.
  There is a further thing that my amendment does because I do believe 
in a fiscally responsible approach, and I believe Congress has an 
obligation to set priorities. There is no question in my mind that an 
immediate priority for us is that we make sure that the low-income 
energy assistance program is adequately funded heading into what will 
obviously be a difficult winter in light of the high energy costs. That 
should be a priority of our Government. But in setting that priority, 
we should not pass the debt, as I said earlier, of funding that program 
on to our children. We should decide what we are going to cut or how we 
are going to reduce the rate of growth in spending at the Federal level 
to pay for this program.
  So my amendment, in addition to adding this fairly significant, 
rather dramatic increase in funding to the LIHEAP program, and a number 
which was originally supported by the 41 signatories of the letter to 
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, also 
puts in place an offset to pay for this.
  The offset represents an across-the-board cut under this bill of all 
accounts. It comes out to be less than a 1-percent cut, a nine-tenths-
of-1-percent reduction in spending across other accounts to pay for 
this LIHEAP spending. That is the proper way to approach an issue such 
as this.
  Let's determine whether or not it is a priority. If it is a 
priority--and I believe it is a priority--to fund LIHEAP, then let's 
fund it and not pass it on to our children.
  That is what I do in this amendment. Rather than sending it up as a 
second degree, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by Senators Reed and Collins to the Fiscal Year 2006 Labor, HHS 
appropriations bill to appropriate $2.92 billion emergency funding for 
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, (LIHEAP).
  LIHEAP provides much needed assistance to Americans who might 
otherwise be forced to choose between heating their home during the 
winter months and putting food on the table for their family. In 
Illinois, 311,000 households received LIHEAP assistance last winter, 
out of 600,000 that applied. Clearly there is much more need than there 
are available funds.
  If you have never experienced an Illinois winter, I can tell you that 
it can be bitterly cold. In January, the wind coming off of Lake 
Michigan near my house in Chicago will chill you to the bone. This 
year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association is projecting an 
even colder than average winter. As a result of colder temperatures and 
rising energy prices, the Department of Energy's Energy Information 
Administration is predicting that families will be faced with 
significantly higher heating costs than last year. Those families whose 
homes are heated primarily by natural gas will pay about $350 more this 
winter, families in homes heated primarily by propane will pay an 
average of $325 more, and families in homes heated primarily by heating 
oil will pay, on average, as much as $378 more than last year.
  With the expected increase in heating costs, there will be an 
increased demand for LIHEAP assistance. Already this year, 100,000 
Illinois households have applied for help with their heating bills for 
the coming winter, a higher than average number for this point in the 
year. The $2.92 billion in emergency funding proposed in this amendment 
will supplement the $2.18 billion already contained in the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill to fully fund LIHEAP at a total of $5.1 billion.
  Livable shelter is a basic human necessity. Without authorizing these 
emergency funds: we put the elderly, the disabled and the low-income 
families that depend on this aid at risk. If we have learned anything 
from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it is that we cannot afford to 
shortchange programs that provide assistance for the most vulnerable in 
our society.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2253

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2253.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy 
    Assistance Program by $1,276,000,000, with an across-the-board 
                               reduction)

       On page 158, strike lines 12 through 21 and insert the 
     following:
     bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, $3,159,000,000.
       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $300,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That these funds are for the 
     unanticipated home energy assistance needs of one or more 
     States, as authorized by section 2604(e) of the Act: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2006.


              general provision--reduction and rescission

       Sec. __. (a) Amounts made available in this Act, not 
     otherwise required by law, are reduced by 0.92 percent.
       (b) The reduction described in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to amounts made available under this Act--
       (1) for the account under the heading ``low-income home 
     energy assistance''; or
       (2) for the account under the heading ``Refugee and Entrant 
     Assistance'' (with respect to amounts designated as emergency 
     requirements).
       Sec. __. (a) There is rescinded an amount equal to 0.92 of 
     the budget authority provided in any prior appropriation Act 
     for fiscal year 2006, for any discretionary account described 
     in this Act.
       (b) Any rescission made by subsection (a) shall be applied 
     proportionately--
       (1) to each discretionary account described in subsection 
     (a) to the extent that it relates to budget authority 
     described in subsection (a), and to each item of budget 
     authority described in subsection (a); and
       (2) within each such account or item, to each program, 
     project, and activity (as delineated in the appropriation Act 
     or accompanying report for the relevant fiscal year covering 
     such account or item).
       (c) The rescission described in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to budget authority provided as described in subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) for the account under the heading ``low-income home 
     energy assistance''; or
       (2) for the account under the heading ``Refugee and Entrant 
     Assistance (with respect to amounts designated as emergency 
     requirements)''.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the reason I sent this amendment up as a 
first-degree amendment is that I believe we have an understanding with 
Senator Reed and Senator Collins as to the voting sequence, and that is 
important, and that is why I originally asked to be protected with a 
second-degree amendment.
  The amendment is now pending. Once again, to summarize what the 
amendment does, it increases the funding for LIHEAP by $1.276 billion, 
which is the number which was asked originally of the administration 
about a month ago by 41 Senators, including Senator Collins and Senator 
Reed, in a letter sent to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Appropriations Committee. It is a significant number. The number is 
reached by determining what the projected costs of the increased cost 
of energy will be to our citizens who are living on a fixed income.
  Second, it is an amendment which is paid for where we recognize we 
have a priority as a Government to participate in assisting these 
individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in dire 
straits if the energy costs, with their significant jump in price, make 
it impossible for them to buy adequate heating oil to heat their

[[Page S11812]]

homes, and in recognizing that priority, we pursue a policy of making 
sure that the moneys will be put into the LIHEAP program, but at the 
same time it will be paid for by a reasonable, across-the-board cut, 
relative to other programs within this bill, on the theory it would be 
inappropriate to simply raise this spending without doing an across-
the-board cut or without some adequate offset because that means we 
would be deficit financing this number and thus passing this cost on to 
our children to pay, rather than absorbing the cost, as it should be 
absorbed, by our generation.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be listed as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the thrust of the argument 
being advanced by the Senator from New Hampshire in terms of 
expenditures. There is no doubt that the deficit is excessive. There is 
no doubt that the national debt is an enormous burden on our society. 
When we deal with the issue of energy assistance for the poor, there 
has been a generalized agreement, as evidenced by the amendment offered 
by the Senator from New Hampshire, agreeing that there ought to be 
LIHEAP assistance.
  He approaches it differently than the Reed-Collins amendment, which 
treats the issue as an emergency, and instead has an across-the-board 
cut of almost 1 percent on all funding under this bill.
  The bill is not cut to the bone. The bill, in its present shape, goes 
into the bone. It does not have an increase for inflation. It has a 
very marked shortfall on many programs. We heard one this morning on 
education in the caption of Pell grants where there simply is not 
enough money to take care of the basic needs of these three 
departments.
  Education and health care are our two major capital assets. Without 
good health, people cannot function. Without a decent education, people 
cannot progress. This allocation of $145 billion is right to the bone.
  We find ourselves in what I think is a genuine emergency situation 
with respect to fuel assistance. It is as much an emergency as Katrina 
is to the people who are victims of that hurricane. That incident has 
markedly raised the cost of fuel oil and natural gas where people need 
it for heating.
  Where we can appropriate the kind of dollars which we have for 
Katrina--and I am not questioning that--this is right in the same boat, 
to use an overused metaphor.
  Much as we have problems with the deficit, much as we have problems 
with the national debt, this is, I think, a genuine emergency, and the 
accounts on this bill simply cannot tolerate further cuts. Therefore, I 
am constrained to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking 
recognition--I was about to suggest the absence of a quorum--but let me 
urge my colleagues to come to the floor, instead, and offer amendments. 
We have an indication that there will be an amendment offered at 6 
o'clock. We may be in a position to vote on some amendments at that 
time, if no other amendments are to be offered. But we have 47 minutes 
between now and 6 o'clock where there is ample time for someone to come 
to the floor a few minutes and offer an amendment.
  It may be the offerer of the next amendment will be here at 5:30. I 
am advised there may be a change. That still leaves us 16 minutes. We 
can get a lot done in 16 minutes, if somebody comes to the floor and 
offers an amendment. We don't like to waste any time, Mr. President. We 
have a complicated bill here. Wait and see, tomorrow, the day after 
tomorrow, Friday, or whoever knows when this week we will finish this 
bill--and the majority leader and the managers are determined to finish 
the bill--16 minutes will look like a lot of time.
  I remind my colleagues about the argument over a unanimous-consent 
request for 1 extra minute last Thursday. We have those arguments from 
time to time, sometimes made by experienced Senators who know that if 
you object to a 1-minute unanimous consent request, it will take at 
least 5 minutes to straighten it out. Eventually they got the 
minute. Mr. President, 15 or 16 minutes is a lot of time, so I urge my 
colleagues to come to the floor.

  In the interim, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for up 
to 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent to lay it aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2193, as Modified

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and send 
to the desk amendment No. 2193, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for himself, Mr. 
     Conrad, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Talent, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2193, as modified.

  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title II (before the short title), add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. TELEHEALTH.

       (a) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
     $10,000,000 to carry out programs and activities under the 
     Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     251) and the amendments made by such Act, and for other 
     telehealth programs under section 330I of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-14), of which--
       (1) $2,500,000 shall be for not less than 10 telehealth 
     resource centers that provide assistance with respect to 
     technical, legal, and regulatory service delivery or other 
     related barriers to the deployment of telehealth 
     technologies, of which not less than 2 centers shall be 
     located in a rural State with a population of less than 
     1,500,000 individuals;
       (2) $5,000,000 shall be for network grants and 
     demonstration or pilot projects for telehomecare; and
       (3) $2,500,000 shall be for grants to carry out programs 
     under which health licensing boards or various States 
     cooperate to develop and implement policies that will reduce 
     statutory and regulatory barriers to telehealth.
       (b) Offset.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, amounts made available under this Act for the 
     administration and related expenses for the departmental 
     management for the Department of Labor, the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, 
     shall be reduced, on a pro rata basis, by $10,000,000. The 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     administer such reductions.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask the amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S11813]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is we are on the 
appropriations bill. I will speak for 5 minutes or so on a subject 
unrelated to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Senator's right.


                  Pentagon Clearance for Judith Miller

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there has been a lot of information around 
this town about a New York Times reporter named Judith Miller. She has 
been central to a case that Mr. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, is 
looking into. There is a lot of anticipation here about what or what 
might not happen with respect to charges that might be filed. It has to 
do with the disclosure of a covert CIA agent and who might have 
disclosed her name and why. Judith Miller was a reporter for the New 
York Times and Judith Miller spent some 80-plus days in jail because 
she decided not to testify about that subject before a grand jury when 
requested by the special prosecutor. She was subsequently released and 
did testify.
  I share the common interest in what has happened, what did the 
special prosecutor find, were there people in Washington, DC, who were 
``outing,'' as it were, a covert agent of the CIA, and if so, did they 
lie about it, did they obstruct justice. I don't know the answer and I 
don't pretend to know the answer to any of that. As one colleague 
suggested on television this weekend, these are not ``technical'' 
issues. There is no such thing as technical perjury. In any event, this 
is very important. But that is now why I am here now.
  The reason I come to the Senate for a moment to mention Judith Miller 
is she wrote something in her own hand that appeared in the New York 
Times in recent days describing her situation. She said something that 
was of interest to me and alerted my curiosity. I have since made a 
number of calls related to that.
  Judith Miller was embedded in a military unit and she said the 
following in her piece:

       The Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret 
     information as a part of my assignment ``embedded'' with a 
     special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons [or 
     weapons of mass destruction.]

  We all understand in the Senate what it means to see secret or top 
secret material. We frequently are provided briefings by the CIA, by 
the Defense Department, by other intelligence units, briefings that are 
classified as either ``secret,'' or ``top secret.'' We understand what 
that means. We understand, for example, if a member of our staff is to 
be made available to have those clearances, clearances come only when 
there is a background check and people are evaluated for receiving a 
clearance to possess secret or top secret information.
  So I had a question when I read this article from a New York Times 
reporter embedded with a military unit:

       The Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret 
     information . . .

  My question is, What kind of clearance would that be, that a 
reporter, traveling with a military unit in Iraq, searching for weapons 
of mass destruction, what kind of clearance would that reporter have to 
see classified or secret information?
  I called the Pentagon to find out what kind of clearance would exist, 
perhaps not just with respect to this reporter. My interest would be on 
a broader basis. We had many reporters embedded with military units in 
Iraq during the invasion and during the subsequent activities, looking 
for weapons of mass destruction.
  Based on what I can learn from the Pentagon--although it was not all 
that clear from the response I received--based on what I could learn 
from the Pentagon, it seems there was no ``secret'' or ``top secret'' 
clearance given this reporter.
  Now, last evening I talked to a soldier in Germany, a man who was a 
part of the unit in which this reporter was embedded. He was very 
willing and interested in talking about the entire experience. The 
fellow from Germany, who is a sergeant in that special unit Judith 
Miller was embedded in, spoke at some length about what happened there. 
I told him of the quote Judith Miller had in the New York Times. He 
said he would have understood that she would have likely seen secret or 
even top secret information. The way the reporter is embedded in that 
circumstance, they have access to a substantial amount of information, 
could not help but have access. So the question I asked the Pentagon 
is, on what basis would a reporter have access to these clearances to 
receive secret or top secret information?
  Further, it is my understanding, at least from the sergeant whom I 
spoke with in Germany last evening, all that was transmitted from this 
reporter, embedded with a military unit, was approved by the colonel 
involved in that military unit and material was not to be published 
without the colonel's approval. Well, of course, that is the censoring 
of the material. It is also the case as reported not only by the 
sergeant in the conversation I had last evening but also in previous 
publications, that this reporter, Judith Miller, described often her 
acquaintance with Donald Rumsfeld and Mr. Feith and others in the 
Pentagon at high levels, including generals. And she expressed freely 
her either agreement or disagreement with the military activities of 
the unit she was in, and talked about complaining back to Rumsfeld, and 
so on and so forth.
  I don't know the voracity of all of that. All I am reporting is what 
I was told by someone in that unit. That is, perhaps, for another 
discussion. I intend to visit about this a bit more fully tomorrow.

  The first question I have is not just with respect to Judith Miller, 
but generally under what conditions were reporters approved to be 
embedded with military units and given opportunity to see secret or top 
secret material? Did they have security clearances or not? The Pentagon 
says not. This reporter said she did. If they had clearances, what 
kinds of clearances were they? The Pentagon said they have 
nondisclosure forms. How can you give a nondisclosure form to a 
reporter and then show them secret or top secret material? Take a look 
at the law, which I will read tomorrow in the Senate. That is not what 
is allowed.
  The classification of material that is secret or top secret dealing 
with intelligence or military operations is not a classification that 
is done lightly. It is not a classification that can be overcome by 
someone in the Pentagon who says, Okay, put on a military shirt or a 
pair of military trousers and go embed yourself with that unit, and, by 
the way, you sign a form that says ``nondisclosure.'' That is not the 
way we decide how to disperse information that is considered secret or 
top secret.
  Those who are in our Senate community, on our staffs and so on, those 
who are permitted to see classified secret and top secret material, 
must have a clearance. That clearance must come after an investigation 
to determine whether that person is qualified to have classified 
information. I am asking the Pentagon, did they provide a clearance? 
The short answer says no, they did not. The writer says they did. The 
Pentagon says a ``nondisclosure form.'' What on Earth is that? How many 
nondisclosure forms exist when they are embedding men and women in the 
news media with military units engaged in activities that often are 
secret and top secret?
  I will be asking the inspector general at the Pentagon to take a look 
at this to evaluate for the Congress. All Members should understand 
this. What are the circumstances by which a reporter describes her 
access to see secret information because she had a ``clearance'' from 
the Pentagon when the Pentagon said she did not have a clearance? We 
understand what secret clearances are around here. All of us understand 
that. We deal with that classification every day. What are the 
circumstances by which a reporter is allowed to see secret or top 
secret information because they have a clearance, when the Pentagon 
says no such clearance exists?
  If, in fact, it is not a clearance and the reporter has simply 
misspoken, if it is instead a nondisclosure form, then I would like to 
see the provision in law by which the Pentagon has decided to provide 
nondisclosure releases to journalists who join military units whose 
units then censor the material that comes from the journalist. And is 
there

[[Page S11814]]

in any way any implied quid pro quo, saying: Give me a clearance, embed 
me, let me see secret material; and by the way, I won't report on the 
things that are secret and you can review all things I write and take 
out the things you do not like?
  I do not know the circumstance. What I have read in recent days 
raised questions for me beyond what has been raised in recent days 
which is the issue of the special prosecutor and his potential action 
before the grand jury expires. I don't know about all of that. I am as 
interested as others about what may or may not happen.
  I am a member of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations. We spend 
a fair amount of time evaluating weapons programs and other issues that 
are secret and top secret. But I don't understand this, a self-
description by a New York Times reporter about her clearance to see 
secret information as part of being embedded with the military unit.
  Mr. President, I will have more to say about this tomorrow. In the 
meantime, I intend to try to find additional answers. They have not 
been forthcoming in the last couple of days. But I think all of the 
Congress, all of the Senate, should be asking these questions as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been sitting in the Chamber 
without accomplishing much for more than 45 minutes now. We had, in my 
view, more quorum calls and more time which was not spent on the bill 
than we should have. We have a great many amendments pending, and we 
are going to be pushing ahead.
  We are filing cloture today, and we are going to be pushing ahead to 
try to get this bill finished at the earliest time. Whether it is 
Thursday, Friday, or when this week, I do not know. We have been 
awaiting for more than 30 minutes the arrival of a Senator to offer 
another amendment. And very candidly, I am tired of waiting.
  So that concludes the action on this bill today. We will begin 
tomorrow morning with a series of amendments. We had wanted to vote on 
a number of amendments which were pending, but we cannot because too 
many Senators have other commitments. That is something that is hard to 
understand sometimes: why we are notified midafternoon that Senators 
are too busy to attend to the business of the Senate and to vote.
  I say in gest that I am going to run for majority leader on a 
platform to have a 4-day workweek, from Monday noon until Friday noon. 
That would double the workweek of the Senate. The second plank of my 
platform--I notice the two Senators from Georgia are amused; anybody 
would be amused--to hold down these votes to 15 minutes and 5 more 
minutes, we did pretty well on that. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote. So 
that is a little progress. The junior Senator from Georgia is nodding 
in the affirmative.
  But we have to do better. And to advocate a 4-day workweek, which 
would double the work of the Senate, is said only facetiously. I would 
have only one vote, my own. I would have maybe two or three if I didn't 
run on that kind of a platform.
  Seriously, we need to get on with this bill. But it is now past 6 
o'clock, and that concludes our activity on the bill. I think the 
custom of the Senate is to move to morning business at this point.
  I am advised we have not yet filed cloture, Mr. President, so I 
suggest the absence of a quorum so we technically stay on the bill 
until the final signature is added so that the cloture motion can be 
filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as though in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Levin are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note that S. Res. 287, which is a 
resolution I introduced on behalf of Senator Stabenow, Senator Reid, 
Senator Frist, and I believe a majority of this body now, has been 
cleared for passage later on this evening. I very much welcome that 
development. It is fitting, indeed, that on the day after the passing 
of Rosa Parks the majority of this body sees it important to adopt a 
bipartisan resolution honoring her life.
  I thank the Chair. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             cloture motion

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have been moving forward with the 
underlying bill, and Chairman Specter has indicated that he has a 
lineup of amendments ready for tomorrow. I know that tomorrow will be a 
busy day with votes in relation to those amendments. We need this final 
appropriations bill this week, as I have said again and again--this 
week and last week--and, therefore, in order to facilitate passage, I 
now send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 3010: The 
     Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
         Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Thad Cochran, Michael Enzi, 
           Wayne Allard, Jon Kyl, Rick Santorum, Richard Lugar, 
           Mike DeWine, Craig Thomas, Mel Martinez, Sam Brownback, 
           Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Robert 
           Bennett, Mike Crapo.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. This cloture vote will occur Thursday morning. We will 
announce the exact time sometime during tomorrow's session, hopefully 
Thursday morning.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to support an important cause, 
at a critical time, increasing the representation of students from 
underrepresented backgrounds in law school and the legal profession.
  Senator Durbin and I have introduced an amendment to the Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill that would 
restore funding for a program which seeks to do just that the Thurgood 
Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program. The Marshall Program 
provides technical assistance, training, coaching, and financial 
assistance to prospective law students who might otherwise experience 
academic or financial obstacles to law school success. It also runs 6-
week Summer Institutes that serve as a bridge between college and law 
school, and helps law students prepare for the bar exam. Since its 
inception, over 7,000 students have received their law degrees with 
help from the Marshall Program. I am proud to say that some of the 
Program's valuable initiatives are held at Illinois' own Northern 
Illinois University and DePaul University.
  Judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and other legal professionals 
are the faces of our justice system. It is important that these 
individuals come from a variety of experiences, and bring to their jobs 
a diverse range of perspectives. According to a national study 
commissioned in 2000, however, half of those polled believed that the 
justice system treated people differently because of their background. 
One important way to address this problem is to make sure that working-
class people and students from different cultural backgrounds have the 
opportunity to go to law school and successfully enter the legal 
profession.
  Equally important is the effect these students will have on their 
families and their communities. The Marshall Program's benefits extend 
not only to

[[Page S11815]]

program participants but also to the generations that follow behind 
them. Every person who rises from limited means to become a doctor or 
lawyer in this country is also a mother, father, sister or brother who 
will help bring resources to their families, leadership to their 
neighborhoods, and hope to their communities. The Marshall Progam helps 
to expand opportunities, for this generation of Americans and the next.
  I am proud to support the cause of increasing the representation of 
students from less advantaged backgrounds in the legal profession. I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.

                          ____________________